Real quick, because I don't know if I will be able to track this thread in detail starting tonight... Take this as input to the discussion that the whole community needs to have about the *potential* problem with the current situation.
Legal documentation as well as application of the "valid license categories" is tied to the bits in something we distribute. So that means that we have LICENSE and NOTICE for the source package (with all code either being valid licenses or developed at the ASF). This same logic applies to any binary distribution... they have their own legal documents, and they should pertain to all bits included in that distribution. Unlike other ASF projects, we do NOT offer binary builds from ASF infra. This is where things are fuzzy, and there needs to be a discussion. We offer "packages" that are pre-compiled. That being said, we actually offer RPMs that include the nonoss features, while our community hosted DEBs do not contain those bits. Theoretically though, the packages should be the place to depend on "system dependencies". The other issue is one of "default build" not having any category X dependencies. There is a fine line between a "system dependency" and a dependency that is pulled down during the build. We had previously agreed that the cat X stuff would require manual work and not be pulled in automatically. Transitive dependencies are also an issue... if we package them, we should respect their license and actually need to have them in the legal docs. Not sure where they stand WRT being pulled in by the build process... So... no answers, just a bit of background. I'm going to be offline (mostly) until Wed of next week. I will try to watch this thread and rescind my -1 on the RC if we can work our way through this logic puzzle in a way that satisfies my concerns about the current state of things. -chip On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi > <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >> Chip, David thanks for the detailed explanation, is one of you taking care >> of fixing this issue or we need to find other volunteers > > I'm sorry to say that I do not have the available cycles. $dayjob + > getting ready for a few days off has me pretty booked up. > > -chip
