corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <>
Subject Re: Release_0.1
Date Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:32:44 GMT
On Friday, August 14, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton <>

> Responses in-line
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jan i [ <javascript:;>]
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:49
> To: <javascript:;>; Dennis Hamilton <
> <javascript:;>>
> Subject: Re: Release_0.1
> On 13 August 2015 at 20:32, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > 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 ?
> <orcmid>
> Yes
> </orcmid>
> [ ... ]
> > 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.
> <orcmid>
> Understood.  There is no need to consider the different LICENSE and NOTICE
> files that might apply to binaries.
> </orcmid>
> >
> > 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).
> <orcmid>
>   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.
> </orcmid>

Ok, but I am only concerned about the release and for that we have dine
what is needed.

> >
> > 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.
> <orcmid>
>   I think it would be good to have such discussions/requests recorded on
> our public list, whatever their nature.
> </orcmid>

 have a look at the commit log, every suggestion from justin ended in a
commit. Again there have been no discussion, in that case I would have made
it public (as I did with the first response from justin).

You see the same thing happening with the findings from Daniel.

jan i

> rgds
> jan i.

Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message