incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve release Apache UIMA 2.2.1-incubating
Date Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:45:11 GMT
On 17/12/2007, Thilo Goetz <twgoetz@gmx.de> wrote:
> Kevan Miller wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
> >
> >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >>> Marshall Schor wrote:
> >>>> We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top directory
> >>>> of the source (and binary) distribution(s), but didn't realize this
> >>>> also
> >>>> needs to be in the top level of the SVN tag, because we didn't know
> >>>> that
> >>>> was considered part of the "distribution".
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you please confirm this is the case?  In which case, we'll of
> >>>> course
> >>>> comply.
> >>>
> >>> Your distribution must correspond to subversion, otherwise it's very
> >>> hard
> >>> to track the artifacts in the tarball, where they came from, how they
> >>> got there, and if they underwent the proper oversight prior to
> >>> packaging.
> >>> (Yes, we vote on the prepared tarball, but you can see how discrepancies
> >>> do create questions.)
> >>
> >> That's not how I interpret the policy document.  It says:
> >>
> >> "To apply the ALv2 to a new software distribution, include one copy of
> >> the license text by copying
> >> the file:
> >>
> >> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
> >>
> >> into a file called LICENSE in the top directory of your distribution.
> >> If the distribution is a jar
> >> or tar file, try to add the LICENSE file first in order to place it at
> >> the top of the archive."
> >>
> >> That's what we do.  Of course we'll make every effort to make
> >> our distribution easy to review.  However, it does seem that
> >> we're ok wrt current policy, and view this as a suggestion
> >> for next time.  Ok?
> >
> > Your interpretation works if your subversion repository is not a
> > "distribution". IMO, it is and should contain appropriate
> > license/notice/disclaimer.
>
> If that is the consensus opinion here, that's what we'll
> do.  But please put yourself in our shoes.  We can only go
> by the information that is available to us.  If this is a
> rule, it would be great if it could be written down so the
> next incubator project doesn't have to go through this.  I'd
> be happy to help with the docs.
>
> Out of curiosity, I started going through the Apache SVN repo
> to see what Apache projects complied with this requirement.  I
> stopped after C because I'd already found 4 that didn't
> comply: Avalon, Cayenne, Cocoon and Commons.

Avalon is defunct, so does not count.

Commons looks OK to me; there are N&L files in

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/attributes/trunk/
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/commons-build/trunk/
and
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/vfs/trunk/

to take a few at random

The top-level directory:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/
is not a project - see the README for details.

I agree that Cayenne and Cocoon are "non-compliant".

> Compliant
> were Activemq, Ant, APR and Beehive.
>
> --Thilo
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message