[VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
|
View:
New views
14 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
[VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by Nicholas L Gallardo
::
Rate this Message:
The Wink community voted on and approved the release of Apache Wink 1.0. We would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this release. Podling vote thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/wink-dev@.../msg02060.html The Maven staging area is at: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/ The distributions are in: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/org/apache/wink/apache-wink/1.0-incubating/ This release is tagged at: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/tags/wink-1.0-incubating/ Please vote using one of the options below. This vote will be open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Nicholas Gallardo WebSphere - REST & WebServices Development nlgallar@... Phone: 512-286-6258 Building: 903 / 5G-016 |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by kevan
::
Rate this Message:
I missed the rc3 round of this release vote... Here's my laggard
mentor's +1. I don't see any other IPMC votes. So, this vote will require a minimum of 2 additional IPMC votes. --kevan On Oct 23, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Nicholas L Gallardo wrote: > > > > The Wink community voted on and approved the release of Apache Wink > 1.0. We > would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this > release. > > Podling vote thread: > http://www.mail-archive.com/wink-dev@.../ > msg02060.html > > The Maven staging area is at: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/ > > The distributions are in: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/org/apache/wink/apache-wink/1.0-incubating/ > > > This release is tagged at: > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/tags/wink-1.0-incubating/ > > Please vote using one of the options below. This vote will be open > for 72 > hours. > > [ ] +1 > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 > > > > > Nicholas Gallardo > WebSphere - REST & WebServices Development > nlgallar@... > Phone: 512-286-6258 > Building: 903 / 5G-016 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by antelder
::
Rate this Message:
+1. Congrats on 1.0.
Note the key used to sign the artifacts is not published to a public key server so you may want to do that before the artifacts go live. See http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html#public-key-not-found ...ant On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas L Gallardo <nlgallar@...> wrote: > > > > The Wink community voted on and approved the release of Apache Wink 1.0. We > would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this > release. > > Podling vote thread: > http://www.mail-archive.com/wink-dev@.../msg02060.html > > The Maven staging area is at: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/ > > The distributions are in: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/org/apache/wink/apache-wink/1.0-incubating/ > > > This release is tagged at: > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/tags/wink-1.0-incubating/ > > Please vote using one of the options below. This vote will be open for 72 > hours. > > [ ] +1 > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 > > > > > Nicholas Gallardo > WebSphere - REST & WebServices Development > nlgallar@... > Phone: 512-286-6258 > Building: 903 / 5G-016 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by Nicholas L Gallardo
::
Rate this Message:
Ant,
+1. Congrats on 1.0. Note the key used to sign the artifacts is not published to a public key server so you may want to do that before the artifacts go live. See http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html#public-key-not-found ...ant On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas L Gallardo <nlgallar@...> wrote: > > > > The Wink community voted on and approved the release of Apache Wink 1.0. We > would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this > release. > > Podling vote thread: > http://www.mail-archive.com/wink-dev@.../msg02060.html > > The Maven staging area is at: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/ > > The distributions are in: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/org/apache/wink/apache-wink/1.0-incubating/ > > > This release is tagged at: > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/tags/wink-1.0-incubating/ > > Please vote using one of the options below. This vote will be open for 72 > hours. > > [ ] +1 > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 > > > > > Nicholas Gallardo > WebSphere - REST & WebServices Development > nlgallar@... > Phone: 512-286-6258 > Building: 903 / 5G-016 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by Leo Simons
::
Rate this Message:
Yo. Looking pretty cool! Sorry, but, few tidbits inline...
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas L Gallardo <nlgallar@...> wrote: > The Wink community voted on and approved the release of Apache Wink 1.0. We > would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this > release. > > Podling vote thread: > http://www.mail-archive.com/wink-dev@.../msg02060.html > > The Maven staging area is at: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/ You're not going to get a +1 from me on all those artifacts - its way too much work for me to look through all of them [1]. I looked just at the distributions... > The distributions are in: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/org/apache/wink/apache-wink/1.0-incubating/ The source release has a LICENSE and a NOTICE file that indicates it contains a bunch of stuff it does not actually contain. AFAICS it should simply have a LICENSE that is just the Apache License and a NOTICE file that has just our standard license header. The NOTICE file for the binary release should include only those notices that are actually required by the included library dependencies, and they should reproduce the exact text of those notices. For example, the slf4j notice line should not be there since slf4j does not require it. cheers, Leo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by Bryant Luk
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Leo,
Thanks for taking a look. Some comments in-line: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Leo Simons <mail@...> wrote: > Yo. Looking pretty cool! Sorry, but, few tidbits inline... > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas L Gallardo > <nlgallar@...> wrote: >> The Wink community voted on and approved the release of Apache Wink 1.0. We >> would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this >> release. >> >> Podling vote thread: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/wink-dev@.../msg02060.html >> >> The Maven staging area is at: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/ > > You're not going to get a +1 from me on all those artifacts - its way > too much work for me to look through all of them [1]. I looked just at > the distributions... > >> The distributions are in: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/org/apache/wink/apache-wink/1.0-incubating/ > > The source release has a LICENSE and a NOTICE file that indicates it > contains a bunch of stuff it does not actually contain. AFAICS it > should simply have a LICENSE that is just the Apache License and a > NOTICE file that has just our standard license header. I think you're suggesting a different LICENSE/NOTICE for source versus binary distributions. I did some random checking looking at some source versus binary Apache project distributions (incubator and non-incubator) and as far as I can tell, they kept their same LICENSE and NOTICE files even though they were not re-distributing the dependency binaries in the source archive. Don't mean to say we should just follow the crowd, but I don't think this is standard practice unless another thread has a viewpoint on this. > The NOTICE file for the binary release should include only those > notices that are actually required by the included library > dependencies, and they should reproduce the exact text of those > notices. For example, the slf4j notice line should not be there since > slf4j does not require it. I see varying degrees of attribution to slf4j in other Apache (incubating and non-incubating) projects (some have none, some have a line). The slf4j line was kept from the Wink 0.1 release. IMHO, this is not a release blocker, but we can remove it in a future release if it is the right thing to do. > cheers, > > Leo > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by Leo Simons
::
Rate this Message:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Bryant Luk <bryant.luk@...> wrote:
>> The source release has a LICENSE and a NOTICE file that indicates it >> contains a bunch of stuff it does not actually contain. AFAICS it >> should simply have a LICENSE that is just the Apache License and a >> NOTICE file that has just our standard license header. > > I think you're suggesting a different LICENSE/NOTICE for source versus > binary distributions. Yep, I see how it looks like that....though maybe I'm _really_ suggesting a source-only distribution :-) Look, the general rule is quite simple: LICENSE files MUST contain all the license information that applies to an artifact, and SHOULD contain only the license information that applies to that artifact. Similarly, NOTICE files MUST contain all the notices that apply to an artifact, and SHOULD contain only the notice information that applies to that artifact. Whenever you violate that SHOULD, you are turning lazyness/sloppiness into a mess for your users. For example, with this current wink distribution, you are (appear to be?) passing on a lot of CDDL obligations down to wink users, which is annoying to users that care about such things. If all your user wants to do is copy/paste the glue code from GzipHandler, that's a rather heavy license to wade through. Similarly, that user of that GzipHandler code now has to copy/paste the entire contents of the NOTICE file. Do you really want to place a burden on your users like that? > I did some random checking looking at some > source versus binary Apache project distributions (incubator and > non-incubator) and as far as I can tell, they kept their same LICENSE > and NOTICE files even though they were not re-distributing the > dependency binaries in the source archive. > > Don't mean to say we should just follow the crowd, but I don't think > this is standard practice unless another thread has a viewpoint on > this. Unfortunately, most apache projects are not as good at following policies as they should be, and most engineers (including me! :-) ) are not nearly as good at applying legal rules and guidelines as they should be. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license "What Are The Requirements To Distribute Other Artifacts In Addition To The Source Package? ... Nothing in this section is meant to supersede the requirements defined <here> and <here> that all releases be primarily based on a signed source package." >> The NOTICE file for the binary release should include only those >> notices that are actually required by the included library >> dependencies, and they should reproduce the exact text of those >> notices. For example, the slf4j notice line should not be there since >> slf4j does not require it. > > I see varying degrees of attribution to slf4j in other Apache > (incubating and non-incubating) projects (some have none, some have a > line). The slf4j line was kept from the Wink 0.1 release. IMHO, this > is not a release blocker, but we can remove it in a future release if > it is the right thing to do. Fortunately we have quite a clear rule on this topic these days, so no opinions are necessary: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#notice-content "What Content Is Appropriate For The NOTICE File? ... Only mandatory information required by the product's software licenses. Not suitable for normal documentation." For background color, here's an earlier thread on this list (which is where I learned about the existence of that clear rule): http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200909.mbox/%3Cf767f0600909090615t6582bfd1m36e4d8abe1392b23@...%3E cheers, Leo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by Bryant Luk
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Leo,
Thanks for the links. One general comment I have is that I understand this is part of the incubation process (and no offense intended to Leo since obviously taking energy and time for this) but if I can't look and see if other Apache projects are doing things the right way, I think we should have more examples of what goes in the NOTICE and LICENSE files and points out licenses/situations/projects/wording that require that they be put in LICENSE/NOTICE files and not. It seems to be a common sticking point on this list for incubator projects. I would put up a patch for the website but obviously I am still learning. On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Leo Simons <mail@...> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Bryant Luk <bryant.luk@...> wrote: >>> The source release has a LICENSE and a NOTICE file that indicates it >>> contains a bunch of stuff it does not actually contain. AFAICS it >>> should simply have a LICENSE that is just the Apache License and a >>> NOTICE file that has just our standard license header. >> >> I think you're suggesting a different LICENSE/NOTICE for source versus >> binary distributions. > > Yep, I see how it looks like that....though maybe I'm _really_ > suggesting a source-only distribution :-) > > Look, the general rule is quite simple: LICENSE files MUST contain all > the license information that applies to an artifact, and SHOULD > contain only the license information that applies to that artifact. > Similarly, NOTICE files MUST contain all the notices that apply to an > artifact, and SHOULD contain only the notice information that applies > to that artifact. > > Whenever you violate that SHOULD, you are turning lazyness/sloppiness > into a mess for your users. > > For example, with this current wink distribution, you are (appear to > be?) passing on a lot of CDDL obligations down to wink users, which is > annoying to users that care about such things. If all your user wants > to do is copy/paste the glue code from GzipHandler, that's a rather > heavy license to wade through. Similarly, that user of that > GzipHandler code now has to copy/paste the entire contents of the > NOTICE file. > > Do you really want to place a burden on your users like that? I wouldn't, however just out of curiosity, how does this apply with Section 4.4 of the Apache license? "If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works;"... I would consider that a copied portion of just the Apache Wink code to be a Derivative Work, and none of the other NOTICE attributions (CDDL) apply to the user (hence excluding those notices so their NOTICE file is relatively brief). I'm not a lawyer but just want some clarification for this "use case" for personal knowledge. >> I did some random checking looking at some >> source versus binary Apache project distributions (incubator and >> non-incubator) and as far as I can tell, they kept their same LICENSE >> and NOTICE files even though they were not re-distributing the >> dependency binaries in the source archive. >> >> Don't mean to say we should just follow the crowd, but I don't think >> this is standard practice unless another thread has a viewpoint on >> this. > > Unfortunately, most apache projects are not as good at following > policies as they should be, and most engineers (including me! :-) ) > are not nearly as good at applying legal rules and guidelines as they > should be. Agreed. > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license > > "What Are The Requirements To Distribute Other Artifacts In Addition > To The Source Package? > ... > Nothing in this section is meant to supersede the requirements defined > <here> and <here> that all releases be primarily based on a signed > source package." > >>> The NOTICE file for the binary release should include only those >>> notices that are actually required by the included library >>> dependencies, and they should reproduce the exact text of those >>> notices. For example, the slf4j notice line should not be there since >>> slf4j does not require it. >> >> I see varying degrees of attribution to slf4j in other Apache >> (incubating and non-incubating) projects (some have none, some have a >> line). The slf4j line was kept from the Wink 0.1 release. IMHO, this >> is not a release blocker, but we can remove it in a future release if >> it is the right thing to do. > > Fortunately we have quite a clear rule on this topic these days, so no > opinions are necessary: > > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#notice-content > > "What Content Is Appropriate For The NOTICE File? > ... > Only mandatory information required by the product's software > licenses. Not suitable for normal documentation." > > For background color, here's an earlier thread on this list (which is > where I learned about the existence of that clear rule): > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200909.mbox/%3Cf767f0600909090615t6582bfd1m36e4d8abe1392b23@...%3E Thanks for the link to the information. However, I would like to get a consensus to make sure that we should not be attributing SLF4J at all. http://slf4j.org/license.html Just for reference, I see Geronimo and Cassandra attributing in: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk/NOTICE https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/trunk/NOTICE.txt which I believe have been used in recent release votes. I'm fine with deleting/re-wording the attributions (afterall, less for us to maintain) and hope not too troublesome but I would like some consensus to make sure that this and future releases are right (without quotes ;-) ). > cheers, > > > Leo > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by antelder
::
Rate this Message:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Bryant Luk <bryant.luk@...> wrote:
> Hi Leo, > > Thanks for the links. One general comment I have is that I understand > this is part of the incubation process (and no offense intended to Leo > since obviously taking energy and time for this) but if I can't look > and see if other Apache projects are doing things the right way, I > think we should have more examples of what goes in the NOTICE and > LICENSE files and points out licenses/situations/projects/wording that > require that they be put in LICENSE/NOTICE files and not. It seems to > be a common sticking point on this list for incubator projects. I > would put up a patch for the website but obviously I am still > learning. > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Leo Simons <mail@...> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Bryant Luk <bryant.luk@...> wrote: >>>> The source release has a LICENSE and a NOTICE file that indicates it >>>> contains a bunch of stuff it does not actually contain. AFAICS it >>>> should simply have a LICENSE that is just the Apache License and a >>>> NOTICE file that has just our standard license header. >>> >>> I think you're suggesting a different LICENSE/NOTICE for source versus >>> binary distributions. >> >> Yep, I see how it looks like that....though maybe I'm _really_ >> suggesting a source-only distribution :-) >> >> Look, the general rule is quite simple: LICENSE files MUST contain all >> the license information that applies to an artifact, and SHOULD >> contain only the license information that applies to that artifact. >> Similarly, NOTICE files MUST contain all the notices that apply to an >> artifact, and SHOULD contain only the notice information that applies >> to that artifact. >> >> Whenever you violate that SHOULD, you are turning lazyness/sloppiness >> into a mess for your users. >> >> For example, with this current wink distribution, you are (appear to >> be?) passing on a lot of CDDL obligations down to wink users, which is >> annoying to users that care about such things. If all your user wants >> to do is copy/paste the glue code from GzipHandler, that's a rather >> heavy license to wade through. Similarly, that user of that >> GzipHandler code now has to copy/paste the entire contents of the >> NOTICE file. >> >> Do you really want to place a burden on your users like that? > > I wouldn't, however just out of curiosity, how does this apply with > Section 4.4 of the Apache license? > > "If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its > distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must > include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within > such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any > part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: > within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative > Works;"... > > I would consider that a copied portion of just the Apache Wink code to > be a Derivative Work, and none of the other NOTICE attributions (CDDL) > apply to the user (hence excluding those notices so their NOTICE file > is relatively brief). I'm not a lawyer but just want some > clarification for this "use case" for personal knowledge. > >>> I did some random checking looking at some >>> source versus binary Apache project distributions (incubator and >>> non-incubator) and as far as I can tell, they kept their same LICENSE >>> and NOTICE files even though they were not re-distributing the >>> dependency binaries in the source archive. >>> >>> Don't mean to say we should just follow the crowd, but I don't think >>> this is standard practice unless another thread has a viewpoint on >>> this. >> >> Unfortunately, most apache projects are not as good at following >> policies as they should be, and most engineers (including me! :-) ) >> are not nearly as good at applying legal rules and guidelines as they >> should be. > > Agreed. > >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license >> >> "What Are The Requirements To Distribute Other Artifacts In Addition >> To The Source Package? >> ... >> Nothing in this section is meant to supersede the requirements defined >> <here> and <here> that all releases be primarily based on a signed >> source package." >> >>>> The NOTICE file for the binary release should include only those >>>> notices that are actually required by the included library >>>> dependencies, and they should reproduce the exact text of those >>>> notices. For example, the slf4j notice line should not be there since >>>> slf4j does not require it. >>> >>> I see varying degrees of attribution to slf4j in other Apache >>> (incubating and non-incubating) projects (some have none, some have a >>> line). The slf4j line was kept from the Wink 0.1 release. IMHO, this >>> is not a release blocker, but we can remove it in a future release if >>> it is the right thing to do. >> >> Fortunately we have quite a clear rule on this topic these days, so no >> opinions are necessary: >> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#notice-content >> >> "What Content Is Appropriate For The NOTICE File? >> ... >> Only mandatory information required by the product's software >> licenses. Not suitable for normal documentation." >> >> For background color, here's an earlier thread on this list (which is >> where I learned about the existence of that clear rule): >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200909.mbox/%3Cf767f0600909090615t6582bfd1m36e4d8abe1392b23@...%3E > > Thanks for the link to the information. However, I would like to get > a consensus to make sure that we should not be attributing SLF4J at > all. > > http://slf4j.org/license.html > > Just for reference, I see Geronimo and Cassandra attributing in: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk/NOTICE > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/trunk/NOTICE.txt > > which I believe have been used in recent release votes. I'm fine with > deleting/re-wording the attributions (afterall, less for us to > maintain) and hope not too troublesome but I would like some consensus > to make sure that this and future releases are right (without quotes > ;-) ). > I agree with Leo that the LICENSE/NOTICE files in these source artifacts have unnecessary contents but I also agree with you in what you point out about section 4.4 of the license and i'm still +1 for this release, though it would be good to try to remove some of it in a next release. I expect you'll get a different answer from each person you ask on whats needed in the NOTICE file, for the SLF4J question there's a thread [1] and legal JIRA [2] that I think imply you probably don't really need anything for SLF4J. ...ant [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/u66o5ucyfquxjl7i?q=LEGAL-59+order:date-forward&page=1 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by Leo Simons
::
Rate this Message:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Bryant Luk <bryant.luk@...> wrote:
> Thanks for the links. One general comment I have is that I understand > this is part of the incubation process (and no offense intended to Leo > since obviously taking energy and time for this) but if I can't look > and see if other Apache projects are doing things the right way, I > think we should have more examples of what goes in the NOTICE and > LICENSE files and points out licenses/situations/projects/wording that > require that they be put in LICENSE/NOTICE files and not. It seems to > be a common sticking point on this list for incubator projects. I > would put up a patch for the website but obviously I am still > learning. Yeah it's painful isn't it? "How to get the legal stuff right" remains surprisingly difficult after all these years. Help making it easier is always very welcome! [1] >> Look, the general rule is quite simple: LICENSE files MUST contain all >> the license information that applies to an artifact, and SHOULD >> contain only the license information that applies to that artifact. >> Similarly, NOTICE files MUST contain all the notices that apply to an >> artifact, and SHOULD contain only the notice information that applies >> to that artifact. ... > just out of curiosity, how does this apply with > Section 4.4 of the Apache license? Ooh, you're getting into this now, eh? Good :-) IANAL, I don't really know. I suspect the precise nitty-gritty legal case is actually a little more lenient than our policies. As in, even if legally all is sound whatever way, our release policies try to enforce some additional clarity and consistency to make things as easy as possible for the user. >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#notice-content >> >> "What Content Is Appropriate For The NOTICE File? >> ... >> Only mandatory information required by the product's software >> licenses. Not suitable for normal documentation." >> >> For background color, here's an earlier thread on this list (which is >> where I learned about the existence of that clear rule): >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200909.mbox/%3Cf767f0600909090615t6582bfd1m36e4d8abe1392b23@...%3E > > Thanks for the link to the information. However, I would like to get > a consensus to make sure that we should not be attributing SLF4J at > all. In an artifact that does not contain SLF4J (like your source distro), do not attribute (at all). In an artifact that does contain SLF4J (like your binary distro), well, see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59 to figure out that no-one is really that sure. If you look at HTTPD, it has the expat license (which is MIT) inside its LICENSE file: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE but no mention about it in its NOTICE file: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE Is that ok? Probably. Is that the *only* right way? Not so sure. My personal rule is that "when in doubt do what Roy voted +1 on" is not a bad strategy when it comes to licensing stuff [2]. > which I believe have been used in recent release votes. I'm fine with > deleting/re-wording the attributions (afterall, less for us to > maintain) and hope not too troublesome but I would like some consensus > to make sure that this and future releases are right (without quotes > ;-) ). Please note, I didn't actually vote on the release, I just pointed out a few things that probably ought to change. I didn't vote because I don't want to go and review all those very many binaries (or the build process that creates them) and I'm not familiar enough with the codebase to somehow "know" that all those binaries are somehow ok. If I had thought these minor tidbits that I raise are enough to actually vote -1, I would've made that clear, sorry that it wasn't. Even if I _did_ vote, releases are majority votes, and 2 +1 beats a single -1. Its just you need 3 votes. In other words, all you need is one more +1 :) ciao, Leo [1] Oh, and for reference, my first encounter with apache licensing policy was when someone had imported the entire codebase of some non-apache project into apache CVS, stripped all the license headers including copyright info, and replaced them with apache ones. We got a polite note from the original projects' owners to fix that pretty please. We got spanked around pretty bad for that one at the following apachecon, and then we all had lots of beer :) [2] there is another rule, "have whatever Greg is having, though less of it" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by kevan
::
Rate this Message:
On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Leo Simons wrote: <snip> > > Please note, I didn't actually vote on the release, I just pointed out > a few things that probably ought to change. I didn't vote because I > don't want to go and review all those very many binaries (or the build > process that creates them) and I'm not familiar enough with the > codebase to somehow "know" that all those binaries are somehow ok. If > I had thought these minor tidbits that I raise are enough to actually > vote -1, I would've made that clear, sorry that it wasn't. > > Even if I _did_ vote, releases are majority votes, and 2 +1 beats a > single -1. Its just you need 3 votes. > > In other words, all you need is one more +1 :) Nick and Bryant, I agree with Leo that the more accurate LICENSE/NOTICE files are preferrable. I probably would not change my vote for this reason. However, I'll make this easier... Digging some more, I found the following issues, which I missed earlier: axiom-api and axiom-impl jars * both contain NOTICES with "Portions copyright IBM" statements. Those aren't mentioned in your NOTICE xml-apis * NOTICE contains copyright statements for ibm, sun, and w3c * contains additional license documentation (i.e. LICENSE.dom- documentation.txt, LICENSE.dom-software.txt, and LICENSE.sax.txt). If applicable, they need to be reflected in the wink license. jcip-annotations * i believe that this is licensed under creative commons attribution, yet is not mentioned in either the license or the notice I'm changing my vote to a -1. --kevan |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by Bryant Luk
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Kevan,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@...> wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Leo Simons wrote: > > <snip> >> >> Please note, I didn't actually vote on the release, I just pointed out >> a few things that probably ought to change. I didn't vote because I >> don't want to go and review all those very many binaries (or the build >> process that creates them) and I'm not familiar enough with the >> codebase to somehow "know" that all those binaries are somehow ok. If >> I had thought these minor tidbits that I raise are enough to actually >> vote -1, I would've made that clear, sorry that it wasn't. >> >> Even if I _did_ vote, releases are majority votes, and 2 +1 beats a >> single -1. Its just you need 3 votes. >> >> In other words, all you need is one more +1 :) > > Nick and Bryant, > I agree with Leo that the more accurate LICENSE/NOTICE files are > preferrable. I probably would not change my vote for this reason. However, > I'll make this easier... Digging some more, I found the following issues, > which I missed earlier: > > axiom-api and axiom-impl jars > * both contain NOTICES with "Portions copyright IBM" statements. Those > aren't mentioned in your NOTICE > > xml-apis > * NOTICE contains copyright statements for ibm, sun, and w3c > * contains additional license documentation (i.e. > LICENSE.dom-documentation.txt, LICENSE.dom-software.txt, and > LICENSE.sax.txt). If applicable, they need to be reflected in the wink > license. > > jcip-annotations > * i believe that this is licensed under creative commons attribution, yet > is not mentioned in either the license or the notice > > I'm changing my vote to a -1. > > --kevan I've added the axiom and jcip-annotations notices (and removed the unnecessary notices I think) in: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/NOTICE Added the Creative Commons license for jcip-annotations to: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/LICENSE I would appreciate a review of these files for the binary release . The source release will have the basic Apache License and notice as originally suggested by Leo. Need to work some simple Maven magic but wanted to see if these files were ok first. Upon some further investigation, I'll remove the xml-api dependency since that isn't absolutely required for the Wink/Abdera functionality to work (so everything that was in the release candidate minus the xml-apis would also be in the future binary distribution) so that's why I didn't add the xml-api notice/license. Thanks for any feedback anyone can provide. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by Nicholas L Gallardo
::
Rate this Message:
Thanks Bryant.
Hi Kevan, On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@...> wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Leo Simons wrote: > > <snip> >> >> Please note, I didn't actually vote on the release, I just pointed out >> a few things that probably ought to change. I didn't vote because I >> don't want to go and review all those very many binaries (or the build >> process that creates them) and I'm not familiar enough with the >> codebase to somehow "know" that all those binaries are somehow ok. If >> I had thought these minor tidbits that I raise are enough to actually >> vote -1, I would've made that clear, sorry that it wasn't. >> >> Even if I _did_ vote, releases are majority votes, and 2 +1 beats a >> single -1. Its just you need 3 votes. >> >> In other words, all you need is one more +1 :) > > Nick and Bryant, > I agree with Leo that the more accurate LICENSE/NOTICE files are > preferrable. I probably would not change my vote for this reason. However, > I'll make this easier... Digging some more, I found the following issues, > which I missed earlier: > > axiom-api and axiom-impl jars > * both contain NOTICES with "Portions copyright IBM" statements. Those > aren't mentioned in your NOTICE > > xml-apis > * NOTICE contains copyright statements for ibm, sun, and w3c > * contains additional license documentation (i.e. > LICENSE.dom-documentation.txt, LICENSE.dom-software.txt, and > LICENSE.sax.txt). If applicable, they need to be reflected in the wink > license. > > jcip-annotations > * i believe that this is licensed under creative commons attribution, yet > is not mentioned in either the license or the notice > > I'm changing my vote to a -1. > > --kevan I've added the axiom and jcip-annotations notices (and removed the unnecessary notices I think) in: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/NOTICE Added the Creative Commons license for jcip-annotations to: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/LICENSE I would appreciate a review of these files for the binary release . The source release will have the basic Apache License and notice as originally suggested by Leo. Need to work some simple Maven magic but wanted to see if these files were ok first. Upon some further investigation, I'll remove the xml-api dependency since that isn't absolutely required for the Wink/Abdera functionality to work (so everything that was in the release candidate minus the xml-apis would also be in the future binary distribution) so that's why I didn't add the xml-api notice/license. Thanks for any feedback anyone can provide. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... |
|||||||||||
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
by Bryant Luk
::
Rate this Message:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Bryant Luk <bryant.luk@...> wrote:
> Hi Kevan, > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@...> wrote: >> >> On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Leo Simons wrote: >> >> <snip> >>> >>> Please note, I didn't actually vote on the release, I just pointed out >>> a few things that probably ought to change. I didn't vote because I >>> don't want to go and review all those very many binaries (or the build >>> process that creates them) and I'm not familiar enough with the >>> codebase to somehow "know" that all those binaries are somehow ok. If >>> I had thought these minor tidbits that I raise are enough to actually >>> vote -1, I would've made that clear, sorry that it wasn't. >>> >>> Even if I _did_ vote, releases are majority votes, and 2 +1 beats a >>> single -1. Its just you need 3 votes. >>> >>> In other words, all you need is one more +1 :) >> >> Nick and Bryant, >> I agree with Leo that the more accurate LICENSE/NOTICE files are >> preferrable. I probably would not change my vote for this reason. However, >> I'll make this easier... Digging some more, I found the following issues, >> which I missed earlier: >> >> axiom-api and axiom-impl jars >> * both contain NOTICES with "Portions copyright IBM" statements. Those >> aren't mentioned in your NOTICE >> >> xml-apis >> * NOTICE contains copyright statements for ibm, sun, and w3c >> * contains additional license documentation (i.e. >> LICENSE.dom-documentation.txt, LICENSE.dom-software.txt, and >> LICENSE.sax.txt). If applicable, they need to be reflected in the wink >> license. >> >> jcip-annotations >> * i believe that this is licensed under creative commons attribution, yet >> is not mentioned in either the license or the notice >> >> I'm changing my vote to a -1. >> >> --kevan > > I've added the axiom and jcip-annotations notices (and removed the > unnecessary notices I think) in: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/NOTICE > Added the Creative Commons license for jcip-annotations to: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/LICENSE > > I would appreciate a review of these files for the binary release . > The source release will have the basic Apache License and notice as > originally suggested by Leo. Need to work some simple Maven magic but > wanted to see if these files were ok first. > > Upon some further investigation, I'll remove the xml-api dependency > since that isn't absolutely required for the Wink/Abdera functionality > to work (so everything that was in the release candidate minus the > xml-apis would also be in the future binary distribution) so that's > why I didn't add the xml-api notice/license. > > Thanks for any feedback anyone can provide. > I've moved the binary distribution NOTICE and LICENSE file to the following location which will be used only for the binary distribution: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/wink-scripts/wink-dist/binarydist/NOTICE http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/wink-scripts/wink-dist/binarydist/LICENSE The following will be used for the source only distribution: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/LICENSE http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/NOTICE Sorry for the noise but would still appreciate feedback for the above to make sure we're doing it right. Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@... |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
