incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Date Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:58:16 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> 
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
> > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
> >>
> >>  The vote is now closed with the following results:
> >>
> >>   * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> >>   * 0 votes: 0
> >>   * -1 votes: 0
> >>
> >>  The vote passes.
> >
> > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> > the LICENSE file.
> >
> > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> >
> 
> Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.

I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
the LICENSE file.  Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed
by the cassandra candidate.


      

Mime
View raw message