accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Date Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:28:28 GMT


Mike Drob wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look, Sean.
>
> The LICENSE file in the source tarball refers to the BSD license and
> includes "for details see
> core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/bloomfilter" and all files
> there (BloomFilter.java, DynamicBloomFilter.java, and Filter.java) include
> the full 3-Clause BSD license in the header. Similarly, the MIT clause has
> "for details see server/monitor/src/main/resources/web/flot" which has a
> LICENSE.txt

I have absolutely no idea if this is "sufficient" or not. I can 
understand Sean's confusion in not seeing relevant licenses in the 
LICENSE file.

> Regarding the crypto, according towww.apache.org/dev/crypto.html#inform  it
> looks like we need to place that disclaimer in the README and not the
> NOTICE file anyway. If you prefer this reading of the policy, can you file
> a JIRA for making these changes and set it as a blocker? Thanks.

Yeah, NOTICE is not the right place for this, AFAIU. I wouldn't think 
this is a blocker, but something we should just remove from the 
src-release's NOTICE file.

> Mike
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Sean Busbey<busbey@cloudera.com>  wrote:
>
>> >  -1
>> >
>> >  good:
>> >
>> >  * verified checksums and signatures
>> >  * source artifact corresponds to referenced commit
>> >  * source builds correctly with Oracle JDK 1.7.0_80 / Apache Maven
>> >  3.3.9 (including unit tests, not including ITs)
>> >
>> >  bad:
>> >
>> >  * LICENSE in source tarball references the "3 clause BSD" and "MIT"
>> >  licenses but does not provide their text or a pointer to where the
>> >  text can be found in the artifact.
>> >  * NOTICE in the binary tarball doesn't include any of the encryption
>> >  notice stuff that's in the source tarball NOTICE (I don't know if this
>> >  information is required in the NOTICE file, but it seems like we
>> >  should be consistent for things that are equally applicable in the
>> >  two).

Mime
View raw message