I read the page twice, and I had to use search to even find the text you reference.
Okay. So if I understand you, the issue here is the LICENSE/NOTICE text. I have not been following this well enough to understand exactly why it needs to change. Again, I’m not following 100% (so please forgive my ignorance), but is that changed file included in the changed binary? If not, I don’t see any issue. The simplest path would actually be to put a link to a modified installer on some non-Apache server that can be used until a new release can go out. I’d be happy to host such a file on in-tools.com. Harbs On Oct 21, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > >> That’s not how I read it… > > With all due respect please read the official Apache release policies. [1] > > In particular under "what is a release" it states: > "the binary/bytecode package must ... (be) the result of compiling that > version of the source code release." > > Under "What must every release contain" it states: > "It is also necessary for the PMC to ensure that the source package is > sufficient to build any binary artifacts associated with the release." > > And under where can we host releases it states: > "Current releases must be served from the ASF mirroring system by placing > them under http://www.apache.org/dist/"; > > And under distribution and mirroring it states: > "They should not be mirrored; only blessed GA releases should be mirrored." > > I'll agree it's not 100% clear, but by not following the official release > procedure we are not getting the legal protection it gives. > > No where (that I can find) does it state that the binary release can be > altered or changed without a vote. > >> What source code needs to be changed to fix this installer? > > In order to comply with Apache licensing the LICENSE / NOTICE needs to > change, that is considered a source code change and IMO this needs to be > reviewed by the PMC. The licensing checkboxes are also probably incorrect > (not 100% sure) after the binary modification and would required a vote and > release of the installer to fix. > >> Your statement also cannot be true. Binaries are not official releases (as >> has been made very clear), but binaries CAN be distributed from the Apache >> site, so that goes to reason that unofficial releases CAN be distributed as >> “convenience packages”. > > So we can load up any old binaries to the dist area to distribute? I think > not (see above). The simplest path would of been to call a vote with a > reduced time face as I suggested. > > Can we please just leave it to the incubator to sort out what should be done > in this case. Hopeful they reach consensus and give a clear ruling on what > can and can;t be done with binary releases. > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
