incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 1.3 RC2
Date Fri, 04 Sep 2009 01:46:40 GMT
On 04/09/2009, Todd Volkert <tvolkert@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The NOTICE file contains items which should not be there, i.e. Tomcat.
>  >
>
>
> The servlet implementation could come from a number of places.  We
>  originally didn't mention it in the NOTICE file, but it got caught as
>  something that needed to be there in our 1.1 release to remove any ambiguity
>  as to which implementation we're using and whether we're legally allowed to
>  do so.  So it must stay.  Are there any other items that you think should
>  not be there?
>
>
>
>  > Also - a minor point - the ========= dividers are unnecessary (the
>  > NOTICE file should be as short as possible).
>  >
>
>
> That's a stylistic choice -- we did it to increase readability.  It
>  certainly should have no bearing on a release vote.
>
>
>
>  > The LICENSE file does not contain the full CCA LICENSE for the Silk
>  > icons; see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode for
>  > the full text.
>  >
>
>
> Good to know - I'll update it on the trunk.  Given that we got it from
>  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/, which is the license linked to
>  off the silk icon home page, should this block a release?

Yes, because it's not actually the license.

>
>  For 3rd party libraries which use the AL 2.0 license (e.g. Smack &
>  > Groovy) for completeness this should be noted in the LICENSE file.
>  >
>
>
> the NOTICE file says which items are Apache 2.0 licensed, and the LICENSE
>  file contains the Apache 2.0 license text.  Is this not sufficient?

It would make life a lot easier for users (and reviewers) if the
LICENSE file had the complete list.

>
>
>  > The LICENSE file should note the name of the license, as well as
>  > including the text.
>  > The URL would be helpful.
>  >
>
>
> Not a bad idea, but certainly not a requirement.  For quick reference, I
>  looked at httpd's LICENSE file, and they don't do this (
>  http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE).
>
>
>  The NOTICE file mentions VMWare, but fails to mention any associated
>  > license.
>  >
>
>
> That's because VMware maintains a copyright ownership over the code
>  contributed to the ASF, as described in the "Overview" and "Source File
>  Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" sections of the ASF Source Header and
>  Copyright Notice Policy (http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html).
>  This copyright notice is pursuant to ASF copyright notice policy.

That's why there is a mention in the NOTICE file, but surely there
must be some license associated with the VMWare code? What is it, and
where is it?

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


Mime
View raw message