corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Release_0.1
Date Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:37:59 GMT
Responses in-line

-----Original Message-----
From: jan i [] 
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:49
To:; Dennis Hamilton <>
Subject: Re: Release_0.1

On 13 August 2015 at 20:32, Dennis E. Hamilton <>

> With regard to the question asked below,
> My only wish about the voting process is that there be enough time for
> anyone to vet the release candidate.  Also, votes should not be based on
> sentiment but by actually checking the release candidate in some way
> (verifying digital signatures and hashes, verifying the code installs in a
> fresh machine, verifying that whatever builds and tests by following the
> instructions works without incident other than limitations described in any
> README, etc.).  This is a [P]PMC responsibility, although it will be nice
> if others on this list also did so.
would 7 days be sufficient ?

[ ... ]
> Possible Clarification
> ----------------------
> I think that if binaries are provided, the LICENSE and NOTICE files that
> install with the binaries must reflect the license conditions on everything
> (and only that) included in the binary distribution.  A README or related
> file and to acknowledge contributions and dependencies is useful for
> information that is not legally required in NOTICE.
We do not provide binaries. If you think of a compiled version of corinthia
it is not part of the release but made available e.g. by PPMC members.
Understood.  There is no need to consider the different LICENSE and NOTICE files that might
apply to binaries.

> I don't understand "- If we only link to a third party library and do not
> include it in the license, we do not need to mention it anywhere (as is
> this is no legal issue)."  Do you mean "If we only link to a third party
> library and do not include it in the [source] code ..."?
I did did mean "LICENSE" file, but your wording is better. Justin made me
aware that if you only link to a library, and do not include it in the
source zip, it does not belong in LICENSE. We do not supply any third party
libraries in binary form (we supply a single in source form, and that is
mentioned in LICENSE)

> Also, if it is a mandatory dependency in order to build the released
> source into a functional result, license of the third party library still
> matters with regard to ASF policy (which goes beyond what is legally
> required).
Well is Justin tells me it has no legal effect and should not be mentioned
in LICENSE; then I do believe him (he wets 5-6 releases every month, so he
surely have more experience).
  I was not clear.  I was not talking about LICENSE but the fact of a 
  license on an external dependency necessary to build usable source.
> It would be very useful if Justin communicated here directly and we could
> resolve any nuances of understanding with him.
MIght be, but we will not take a license discussion in here. We discuss
whether or not the release will pass and when Justin tells me he is
prepared to vote +1 for the source zip then I am satisfied.

 I have not been discussing at all with Justin, but simply made the changes
he asked for, and I suggest we as podling do not question that judgement.
Whether or not link dependencies should be included in the LICENSE in
general is outside our scope.
  I think it would be good to have such discussions/requests recorded on our public list,
whatever their nature.  

jan i.

View raw message