incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)
Date Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:58:04 GMT
Robert, are you happy to +1 the release now?

On 6/19/07, robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/07, Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have have some questions that need answering before we can proceed
> > with the release. Please them inline below:
> >
> > On 5/29/07, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > > > On 5/28/07, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Just a friendly reminder.  We're missing anoter IPMC vote ...
> > > >
> > > > issues
> > > > -------
> > > >
> > > > i think that apache-servicemix-3.1.1-incubating.tar.gz has some
> > > > libraries in lib that are missing their LICENSE/NOTICE entries (eg
> > > > howl, jencks)
> > > There are licensed under ASL 2.0 and don't have any NOTICE file afaik.
> > > Should all the jars be listed in the LICENSE / NOTICE file ? My
> > assumption
> > > was that only those who had some attributions somehow or with a
> > > different license
> > > need to be, but correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > Can someone clarify this?
>
>
> it's best that license information is provided clearly for all external
> parts of a release. otherwise, the collective license can be confused with
> the constituent licenses.
>
> i don't think that it's positively harmful to ship a release which is
> missing information about jars that are apache licensed but i would ask to
> find out their licensing if i didn't know them
>
> (IMHO we need to move towards using meta-data to record this information so
> that these questions don't have to continually asked)
>
> How are Apache Licensed projects that are
> > included in an ASF project supposed to be handled if they don't
> > provide their own NOTICE file?
>
>
> it they don't provide their own NOTICE file then that's fine
>
> but again, missing NOTICE files raise questions which then require answers
>
> > > apache-servicemix-3.1.1-incubating-src.zip contains a directory that
> > > > seems like somethings gone wrong (src/C:tmp)
> > > I will fix that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/sitemesh-decorator.tld
> > > >
> > > > is licensed under "The OpenSymphony Software License, Version 1.1" - i
> > > > can't see this in LICENSE or NOTICE. same goes to
> > > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/sitemesh-page.tld
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > i think that
> > > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/common.js
> > > >
> > > > requires attribution but i can't see anything in NOTICE
> > > >
> > > > i think that
> > > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/css.js
> > > >
> > > > is missing from the LICENSE
> > > >
> > > > also
> > > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/plotkit/*.js
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (after re-reading the latest version of
> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html, i'm not sure how this
> > > > applies javascript and other distributed source. i'll follow this up
> > > > with legal.)
> > > I will add these informations to the LICENSE / NOTICE files.
> >
> > Is it sufficient to place these licenses in the NOTICE file? Can
> > someone clarify this please?
>
>
> see http://www.apache.org/legal/
>
> personally, speaking i wouldn't -1 a release that include LICENSE
> information in the NOTICE but AIUI it's more appropriate in LICENSE
>
> > > otherwise generally ok but i have a few questions
> > > >
> > > > source in
> > > >
> > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.1.1-incubating/org/apache/servicemix/samples/wsdl-first/wsdl-first-jsr181-su/3.1.1-incubating/
> > > >
> > > > lacks headers. is this going to be released? if so, are these
> > > > generated?
> > > >
> > > > are the jars under
> > > > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.1.1-incubating/ going to
> > > > be released?
> > > >
> > > > servicemix-wsn2005-3.1.1-incubating-sources.jar contains lots of java
> > > > sources without headers (mostly under
> > > > org.apache.servicemix.wsn.jaxws). is this going to be released? if so,
> > > > are these generated?
> > > Yeah, lots of these files are generated.  Files generated are not in svn
> > > so we usually check the headers on the svn tree rather than the source
> > > jars generated by maven.  These jars are not meant to be built for only
> > > contain all the java sources for debugging purposes.   If you want to
> > > build these jars, you need to use the source distribution or use the svn
> > > tag.
> >
> > So do we need to license generated files?
>
>
> nope (AIUI generated files are not independently copyrightable)
>
> just needed to check that these were indeed generated and so didn't need a
> license header
>
> - robert
>


-- 
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message