On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > >> ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary > >> artifact or only those that PMC actually care about?... > > > > IMO any object/binary created from our source code has to be clearly > > identified as not coming from the ASF. > > Well, the real question is: do we aspire to have a monopoly on certain > binary convenience artifacts? ?! No. The mission of the ASF is to *facilitate* the use and adaptation of software. > IOW, if a Hadoop PMC blessed and RPM > as one of those artifacts, does it mean that only that RPM (however > potentially screwed up it is from the standpoint of Fedora packaging > guidelines) is the RPM that can be called Hadoop? > How is the release policy not clear ( http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distribute-other-artifacts) when it says: All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make changes > to the software And then it says In all such cases, the binary/bytecode package must have the same version > number as the source release and may only add binary/bytecode files that > are the result of compiling that version of the source code release. The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Hadoop in it that corresponds to an Apache Hadoop release. Having project Foo produce a release of Bar, Baz and Pigdog is pretty far off the reservation, however.
