esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Hirsch <hirsch.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of apache-esme-incubating-1.1 - Second vote
Date Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:31:26 GMT
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>...
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/esme/trunk/THIRD-PARTY.txt
>>>
>>> Format looks ok but I don't think we can release with dependencies
>>> that have unknown licenses.
>>> Those should be tracked down or eliminated, IMO.
>>
>> But I added in the file "We've tracked down the licenses for these
>> dependents accordingly: " with the details lower in the file. Do we
>> need more than that?
>
> Ah sorry, didn't realize the last paragraph refers to those licenses, my bad.
>
> I have reformatted that file to make things clearer, and I think asm
> and cglib still need clarification, if I read your mvn site output
> correctly.

Thanks for the tip about the other two - I didn't realize that they
were also unknown

cglib -  Apache 2.0 license - http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/cglib/cglib/2.2

asm -  tracked from
http://scala-tools.org/mvnsites-snapshots/maven-scala-plugin/dependencies.html
to http://asm.ow2.org/license.html
But I'm not sure where this OK or not - it is not an Apache 2.0
license.  Could you check this. ASM appears to be included in a
variety of other OSS apps, so I'm hoping that will be usable.

>
> -Bertrand
>

Mime
View raw message