On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Owen O'Malley <omalley@...> wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@...> wrote:
>> It's not the job of the incubator to create new rules, but rather to
>> help podlings to graduation while following existing Apache
> We aren't making new rules. We are trying to help the Bigtop project
> understand the rules about not releasing non-Apache software. There is
> a huge difference between depending on an artifact from another
> project and building and distributing non-Apache rpms in the project's
> /dist directory.
They are not releasing non-Apache software. They are not forking an
existing project. Bigtop's release artifact will contain packaging
code which allows users to compile packages (deb, rpm, etc...) for
this ASL licensed component, not the source/binaries of the component
>> It's very clear from
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html that what has been proposed
>> is acceptable under existing Apache rules.
> Can you find a single instance other than the disagreement between
> Apache Lucene and Apache Commons where one project is distributing
> another project's rpms? Are there any other non-Apache rpms in /dist?
> Clearly the answer is a resounding NO. It would be a huge violation of
> the trust the incubator is putting in me as a mentor if I didn't block
> Bigtop's plan to do so.
If the component made an objection to being included in Bigtop then I
could see an argument to be made, that's not the case here. The
opposite is true from what I've seen -- people want their software to
be included so that users can more easily consume it. That's why they
released their software under a less restrictive license in the first
EOD existing Apache rules/license make no such distinction. "Works
under the following licenses may be included within Apache products"