geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From han hongfang <hanhongf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo 3.0.0 (3rd Try)
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:25:57 GMT
+1

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Forrest Xia wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:23 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'm a little confused by the LICENSE and NOTICE in the source.  I've
>> been telling people for years that these should apply to what is actually
>> in the source, however these appear to be the ones appropriate for the
>> binary distros.  For instance they point to files in the repository folder
>> which only exists in the binary distro.
>> >
>> > That can be debated. And I've seen both styles used. I'm not sure which
>> style I prefer. Separate source and binary license files may be more
>> accurate, but they also may be misinterpreted. I do agree that
>> license/notice in jar files should be source licenses…
>> >
>> > In any event, the current source LICENSE file clearly indicates what
>> applies to source and binaries. A consumer of the source should be able to
>> easily sort out what applies/doesn't apply… So, I'm fine with it as is…
>> > Kevan, your vote?
>>
>> Was waiting for build to finish. Given the US holidays, etc. I'd give
>> this a few more days to gather additional votes…
>>
> OK, that's fine to wait a couple days for this vote.
>
>>
>> --kevan
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks!
>
> Regards, Forrest
>
>


-- 
Best regards,

Han Hong Fang (Janet)
hanhongfang AT apache.org

Mime
View raw message