All,
Below is the current draft of the IPMC board report.
We're still missing sign off from: slider, systemml, toree, trafficcontrol
(added them to the to to help get sign off)
Please see below
Incubator PMC report for August 2016
The Apache Incubator is the entry path into the ASF for projec
This appears to be BSD 3 clause, which is OK.
https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
Best is to check on legal-discuss, as the highlighted section is different:
https://github.com/aparapi/aparapi/blob/master/LICENSE.TXT#L25
John
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:39 PM Edward J. Yoon
wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
In HORN podling, we consider about using Aparapi, a Java-to-OpenCL
conversion tool from AMD [1] for support SIMD and GPUs.
I wonder whether aparapi.jar and native libaparapi.so binary files can be
included in Apache release tarball.
Thanks!
1. https://github.com/aparapi/aparapi/blob/master/
Hello Incubator IPMC,
This is a call for a vote on the Apache Geode (incubating) release
1.0.0-incubating.M3.
This release candidate, 1.0.0-incubating.M2.RC7, has successfully passed a
vote for a release on the Apache Geode developer mailing list.
Vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod
Hi,
One of my concerns was that the code may be a port of something under a
different license (given the directory naming). For example there’s QNX FS code
in Linux which is GPL licensed. [3] (date seem to be about 2.2) However I think
it may be a port to get the software to run on QNX4 and wri
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
...
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> ===
>>> Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Justin Mclean
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT
>>> source code.
>>
>> That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> To be concrete: up thread was mention of shm.c
>
> I found two shm.c files in the HAWQ repo. It says it came in as part of
> the SGA. I looked in PostGreSQL's repo, but didn't find shm.c in the same
> paths. So where did HAWQ's shm.c come fro
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT
>> source code.
>
> That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or
> CDDL licensed software?
There's NO WAY that could be the ca
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> ===
>> Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
>> or more contributor license agreements. See the NO
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT
>> source code.
>
> That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or
> CDDL licensed software?
>
>> That's why I don't feel comfort
To be concrete: up thread was mention of shm.c
I found two shm.c files in the HAWQ repo. It says it came in as part of
the SGA. I looked in PostGreSQL's repo, but didn't find shm.c in the same
paths. So where did HAWQ's shm.c come from? I think that's what Justin
is asking.
On 8/9/16, 4:32 P
Hi,
> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT
> source code.
That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or
CDDL licensed software?
> That's why I don't feel comfortable putting the overall PG licensed header
> there on my own.
On 8/9/16, 3:10 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> AIUI, if it is 3rd party and otherwise unmodified, modification of the
>> headers is not an option.
>
>Even when the files are missing header or missing the license that they
>were originally under?
IANAL, but in my mind, yes. The header is
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> If you're asking why adding ALv2 header is against the letter of the
>> policy, the answer is simple.
>> Quote:
>>"3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of
>> third-party source files.”
>
> In the case when
Hi,
> If you're asking why adding ALv2 header is against the letter of the
> policy, the answer is simple.
> Quote:
>"3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of
> third-party source files.”
In the case when they are not actually ALv2 licensed. It assumed that any files
t
Gino,
This one has caught me before. Branch deletions don't get picked up on the
github sync. You need to actually commit a change to a branch for it to
sync. At which point it will sync the repo.
If there's a change you can push to a branch, would be good (kind of
puzzling why there's no comm
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Sure, but mu point is: since I'm not comfortable going against the
>> current stated policy
>> on unmodified 3d party:
>>http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>
> Why exactly is that against policy?
If you're asking
Not sure what I'm missing, but I did some branch cleanup on the Toree repo
and I'm not seeing them taking effect on the github mirror.
I confirms that other users can fetch upstream and see my new branch, but I
do not see it in github. What am I missing?
Thanks,
Gino
Hi,
> Sure, but mu point is: since I'm not comfortable going against the
> current stated policy
> on unmodified 3d party:
>http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
Why exactly is that against policy? You are adding a header to make clear what
the license of that file is. That not
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> If you remember, we had a very similar conversation in the context of
>> Kudu, and I’d like HAWQ to stick to the same path treating unmodified
>> upstream code that Kudu
>> settled on: http://markmail.org/thread/7w7gjmqrzlutx62z
>
>
Hi,
> AIUI, if it is 3rd party and otherwise unmodified, modification of the
> headers is not an option.
Even when the files are missing header or missing the license that they were
originally under?
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubsc
Hi,
> Well, I don't think there's ever a 100% assurance in IP matters,
> but... here's what
> we know AND here's what we would like to advertise to the consumers of HAWQ:
> A certain set of file (how we advertise the filenames is TBD, but
> likely in LICENSE)...
> 1. ...came from PostgreSQL proj
Hi,
> If you remember, we had a very similar conversation in the context of
> Kudu, and I’d like HAWQ to stick to the same path treating unmodified
> upstream code that Kudu
> settled on: http://markmail.org/thread/7w7gjmqrzlutx62z
And the result of that is that it almost impossible to review an
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
> ...
>
> ===
> Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
> or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
> distributed with this work for additional inform
A very good question/point originated as part of the HAWQ podling
release discussion. I'm forking it into a separate thread and CCing
legal-discuss to help clarify this (at least for myself) once and for all.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> AIUI, if it is 3rd party and otherwi
On 8/9/16, 1:46 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik"
wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean
>>>wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik"
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean
>>wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark
the fi
On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik"
wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean
>wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark
>>> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could
>>
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> if you're saying that we need to slap an ALv2 license header on something
>>> like shm.c -- I don't feel comfortable doing that
>
> Perhaps ask yourself why that is? Is it because the
> licensing/copyright/provenance is unclear?
No
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark
>> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could look
>> weir enough.
>
> Would’t be better to fix/add the headers?
For things where we div
Done, happy editing!
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:02 PM Kathy Saunders
wrote:
> Please grant me access (username KathySaunders) so that I can add the
> Quarks podling report next month
>
> Thanks,
> Kathy
>
Please grant me access (username KathySaunders) so that I can add the
Quarks podling report next month
Thanks,
Kathy
Forwarding my (binding) +1 from the PPMC vote.
Christopher wrote:
IPMC,
Please consider the following candidates for Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating
and Fluo Build Resources 1.0.0-incubating. There are two artifacts, which
we are releasing together. They do not contain Fluo itself, but are
prerequ
I am pleased to announce that the Incubator PMC has approved 0.8.1-RC5 of
Apache Gearpump (Incubating) for release as version 0.8.1 (Incubating).
There were 3 binding approval votes from the IPMC:
* John D. Ament
* Justin Mclean
* Jean-Baptiste Onofré
There are no disapproving votes.
We will pro
36 matches
Mail list logo
