Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Shindig Incubator 1.0
From: Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <25aac9fc0905120525kb0c8406qe4f9eea54fbd151d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F8001A97-8BA3-402A-9794-C432A44069BE@tfd.co.uk>
	 <25aac9fc0905111011l3e809084w80b29a5b3e543366@mail.gmail.com>
	 <C6B3D9AE-4473-4F60-ABDC-87986A9DAAE5@tfd.co.uk>
	 <25aac9fc0905111624s32b424ccl14eed84b4a93e19a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <D4A85142-841C-4960-85AF-FC0714B102FD@tfd.co.uk>
	 <25aac9fc0905120251pb8afc14l30af80f736fbc5ef@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9ae367340905120340u28193149wd591731e4ea23cc4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <25aac9fc0905120525kb0c8406qe4f9eea54fbd151d@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 07:03:43 -0400
Message-Id: <1242903823.24313.1707.camel@urgyen>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am a mentor for Shindig, but I am aware of a weaknesses of mine as a
mentor is that I'm not that knowledgeable or experienced with the
release process at Apache, and therefore have not followed this thread
in detail, which I really should have.

It seems that this release is stalled, but I am not entirely sure how,
and want to understand this better.

The thing that confuses me is that, as I understand it, Shindig is just
using Maven to produce its artefacts (binary jars as a convenience to
users). If that is the case, surely those artefacts are structured in
the same way as other Maven based releases from other projects?

Is it that we have identified a new issue that actually affects _all_
Maven based releases, not just Shindig? If so, how can we both unblock
the Shindig release and also get this issue resolved in such a way as it
covers all Maven based projects?

Upayavira

On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 13:25 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 12/05/2009, Vincent Siveton <vincent.siveton@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2009/5/12 sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>:
> >
> > >>  I was reliably informed that this was discussed on the Maven list in March
> >  >> 2008 (subject: legal-discuss)  and for binary distributions that are created
> >  >> by the war packager that contained 3rd party libraries the DEPENDENCIES file
> >  >> was sufficient to comply with ASF rules.
> >  >
> >  > The Maven list is not the place for definitive advice.
> >  >
> >  > If there are any doubts, these should be raised on the legal-discuss list.
> >
> >
> > Sure, it is why it was discussed on dev@maven AND legal-discuss@
> >  http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/message/g2elchg5iwqnif6m
> 
> Thanks for the pointer.
> 
> The thread includes the statement:
> 
> " Given that I said that rolling up LICENSE and NOTICE files for
> artifacts that assemble and contain other artifacts such as wars and
> ears is out of scope for this proposal,"
> 
> so I'm not convinced that the thread applies here.
> 
> But even if it does, Henry Yandell wrote:
> 
> "Let's say I include a few of the jars in my distribution, but not all.
> Then I'll need to add some of the LICENSE files and not other."
> 
> >  Shindig uses the org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 which is
> >  AFAIK compliant with the requirements discussed on legal-discuss.
> 
> I'm not convinced.
> 
> It may be that the 3rd party jars don't need to be mentioned in
> NOTICE, but I'm sure that their licences need to be included in the
> LICENSE file.
> 
> >  Cheers,
> >
> >
> >  Vincent
> >


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