On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > On 26.08.2012 13:15, Tim Williams wrote: >> Marvin gave the link earlier in this thread. 4th para is the relevant bit. >> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what > > The relevant part is in the last paragraph. However, that says > "convenience" and defines version numbering requirements, but it does > /not/ state that the binaries are not sanctioned by the ASF and are not > part of the official ASF release. > > It would be very useful if that paragraph were amended to say so > explicitly. I've had no end of trouble trying to explain to managers and > customers that any binaries that come from the ASF are not "official". > Regardless of the policy stated numerous times in this thread and on > this list, this is not clear anywhere in the bylaws or other online > documentation (that I can find).
The possibility exists that when the question is put to legal-discuss, we will find that Roy's missives have been misinterpreted, and that so long as the imperative of a clean source release (uncontaminated by e.g. embedded jar files) is satisfied, it is permissible for a PMC to sanction accompanying binary artifacts which are wholly derived from said clean source. It is also possible that the V.P. of Legal (who is a Board member) will kick the question up to the Board and that they will take up a full-blown resolution clarifying the policy. Perhaps they will impose restrictions going forward such as the requirement that binaries to be blessed must be created via automatic processes kicked off by Infra on sterile build machines. Or perhaps there won't be a resolution, but the discussion will produce a new common understanding that PMCs have so much autonomy they can "release" a peanut butter and jelly sandwich alongside the source code as an "act of the corporation". And yet another possibility is that the Legal VP will issue a narrowly tailored rulying stating that AOO may release blessed binaries while incubating, but that after graduation only binaries produced on sterile build machines may be blessed. Who knows? We aren't going to resolve these questions on this list. In any case, I do not believe that it is in the best interests of either the ASF or the AOO podling (particularly those contributing towards the binary artifacts) for ambiguity to persist around issues of indemnification, and I don't think it's good for the ASF to walk backwards into a policy on binary releases accidentally. Apologies for keeping the zombie thread alive. If it were up to me, it would have hopped forums some time ago. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
