Hi, > Does the convenience binaries include nightlys? Or CI test builds?
In general they do not not, as wording states “approved releases” i.e. that means that the IPMC must vote on the release artefact. Also note that only approved code can be in a convenance binary, which again means it only includes code voted on by the IPMC in a release. However, it would be expected that these other types of builds follow these guidelines, but as there are not based on an offical releases there might be some differences. The main issue with these sort of releases would be distribution to end users, which is not allowed, so it needs to be made very clear that this is for development and testing use only and that end users are not using these in production or elsewhere. A large number of downloads from these platforms would suggest that the platform is being used by end users and steps may need to be taken to prohibit that. > If yes, what's the recommendation if a project needs to test category X > optional dependencies? This is not covered and it would be good to have a seperate discussion about this. IMO It probably should be discussed on a case by case basis. In general these could not be called Apache releases or distributed on ASF platforms, and would be treated as 3rd party releases with different branding and trademark requirements. Currently permission from legal and/or infra and/or the IPMC is likely to be needed to do this. >> Where possible it should be pointed out that Apache project make source >> releases and convenience binaries are just a convenience for end user. > > What's the reason for requiring this statement? Can a project choose to vote > on a binary release under ALv2 to make it official? Currently with ASF policy, no binary releases are “official” as we make source releases only. This may change in the near future. However, binary releases are expected to comply with ASF policy on licensing, branding, trademarks, releases and distribution just like source releases. > What does this mean to the PPMCs? Would it be more helpful if this includes > reference to the branding policies that the PPMCs should adhere to and > protect? (e.g. [1][2][3]) This is already linked to in the Incubator policy / guidelines. > Would there be cases where the convenience binaries must be licensed under a > different but non-Category-x license due to dependencies? If so, what's the > recommendation? The dependancies don’t effect the license only what is bundled in the release does that. If other Category A and Category B items are included in the release then that is fine as they are compatible with the Apache license when used in this way. So I can't think of a situation were a distribution would need to be licensed under a different license. If it was then it wouldn’t be an Apache release as all release need to be under the Apache license. Thanks, Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
