incubator-ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Masanz, James J." <Masanz.Ja...@mayo.edu>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
Date Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:53:23 GMT
Now that 48 hours passed since I added the comment to LEGAL-154 about lazy consensus, I've
added another comment that cTAKES will proceed by lazy consensus with including the index
of words and word counts.

-- James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ctakes-dev-return-1045-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org
> [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-1045-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org]
> On Behalf Of Masanz, James J.
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:40 AM
> To: 'ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org'
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
> 
> Thanks Chris!
> I added such a comment to LEGAL-154.
> 
> -- James
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > ctakes-dev-return-1044-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org
> > [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-1044-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.
> > org]
> > On Behalf Of Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:33 AM
> > To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
> >
> > Hi James,
> >
> >
> > On 1/17/13 7:14 AM, "Masanz, James J." <Masanz.James@mayo.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >Pei had opened LEGAL-154
> > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-154
> > >and that received a comment from Craig L Russell, stating the
> > >intended use seemed ok to him.
> > >
> > >Can you suggest how we should proceed with that so the issue can be
> > >considered 'cleared'?
> >
> > Yep here's how: put a comment on that issue that via lazy consensus,
> > you are going to assume that in 48 hours if there are no objections
> > that everyone is happy with Craig's comment and that cTAKES will
> proceed.
> >
> > In the meanwhile the VOTE just stays open and hopefully in 48 hours,
> > Jukka and/or others will be willing to give it a +1 at that point.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris
> >
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >James Masanz
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From:
> > >> ctakes-dev-return-1041-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>[mailto:ctakes-dev-return-1041-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.
> > >>org
> > >>]
> > >> On Behalf Of Jukka Zitting
> > >> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:30 AM
> > >> To: ctakes-dev
> > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Chen, Pei
> > >> <Pei.Chen@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > >> > This is a call for a vote on releasing the following candidate as
> > >>Apache
> > >> cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating.
> > >>
> > >> +0
> > >>
> > >> The release looks pretty good, but I'd feel more comfortable voting
> > >>+1 if  the licensing status discussed with RC4 got documented better
> > >>and ideally  cleared through a LEGAL issue. Pei's rationale about
> > >>the data falling  under the normal contributor license sounds
> > >>convincing, but I'm not  intimate enough with copyright law to be
> > >>able to tell whether those files  could instead be interpreted as
> > >>derivative works of the upstream data and  thus constrained by the
> upstream license.
> > >>
> > >> BR,
> > >>
> > >> Jukka Zitting


Mime
View raw message