brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.7.0-M2-incubating [rc3]
Date Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:52:00 GMT
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 03:01:02PM +0000, Richard Downer wrote:
> Thanks for your excellent feedback Chip.
> On 11 December 2014 at 16:59, Chip Childers <> wrote:
> > Question: Although this is a source code release, are you intending to
> > provide a binary distribution as a project? If so, does that
> > distribution include any "bits" from any software not handled by the
> > source release's legal documentation? I ask, only because that would
> > require a different set of LICENSE and NOTICE files that should probably
> > be reviewed as well.
> Short answer: no, this release will be source-only. We'll work on a
> binary release for our next release.
> Longer answer: we recognised that we would need to make new LICENSE
> and NOTICE files for a binary release (and there would probably be
> other things we need to consider too). As our list of transitive
> dependencies is pretty lengthy, it's quite a lot of work to get the
> binary release fit for release. The source is the most important part,
> so for our first release we decided to concentrate on the source
> release only, in order to avoid it being held up by issues only
> affecting a binary release.
> For our next release we will revisit this, as we realise that many of
> our users will be more interested in the binary release.

Makes perfect sense to me...

> >
> >
> > The LICENSE and NOTICE files are a bit off from what's needed. When
> > bundling BSD and MIT licensed code, there isn't a requirement to add
> > anything to the NOTICE file. See "Bundling Permissively-Licensed
> > Dependencies" in the link above.
> Thanks. I've revised LICENSE and NOTICE per your suggestion; see this PR:
> TL;DR my revised versions can be viewed in full here:
> Do you think these changes would be satisfactory?

They look good to me. While I think you could probably push forward to
try and get a release voted in without these changes, how the notice
file is used incorrectly will certainly come up within general@i.a.o.

My suggestion would be to merge the PR from above, and then re-spin the
RC (new VOTE).

> > ZeroClipboard.{js,swf} is in NOTICE (which would be moved to LICENSE
> > anyway), but it still talks about the swf file. This is really minor,
> > but could be fixed with the other fixes from above.
> We have actually kept the .js file in one of the cases, so I've left
> that in (but removed the swf reference).

Got it.

> > Hope this helps!
> Very much :-)


> Thanks
> Richard.

View raw message