Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 25068 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2009 02:06:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Sep 2009 02:06:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 17367 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2009 02:06:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 17187 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2009 02:06:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 17176 invoked by uid 99); 4 Sep 2009 02:06:16 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:06:16 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of tvolkert@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.150 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.92.150] (HELO qw-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.92.150) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:06:05 +0000 Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so150156qwf.54 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:05:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=qS2liCQYewWBQAEmn1CTekU57vjEVMzN8MinqkN92mY=; b=QBBnzXxOPV+Z7mkrrnJGsGwG31iQuEgk2/rHEGNg4D5PU97+E4WCPRXlR79y9wsfoX 6gaFWgryahhrNcwi2zAPypYZAzOVOePrLdsn/duYa2LitGTt7dh6kilnHZwmVf4Jx6ol Vcacqmc0gTr7kAYcEJXEkbPLXS/D7YR3F9GRo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=k7Rmlvw4sz8MPA5fF8eTd6aUgn4Bz49oMQhwzTCnpzW0YeuMnzxlx0hXuBjXMM3tI+ zgY8kHO+Ia+x+NEPZIHfKEm53ec/bBs0EM4MHuwQJdM5uyobnEigkmfHBeGObTUrgRlv JczCqYK7MKsA7LlYgz4Ew+ckVTdihO0q9Eezo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.53.101 with SMTP id l37mr5342174qag.367.1252029943994; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:05:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <25aac9fc0909031846v2297637i5077456b3c8f6131@mail.gmail.com> References: <168ef9ac0909030542j7624c30bs265f4a98c98e9c16@mail.gmail.com> <25aac9fc0909031805l7b547731l84a3ee94a954e283@mail.gmail.com> <168ef9ac0909031837g52bff2maf25d002b3b0145f@mail.gmail.com> <25aac9fc0909031846v2297637i5077456b3c8f6131@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 22:05:38 -0400 Message-ID: <168ef9ac0909031905o28ac154fvc133f918ccf962dc@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 1.3 RC2 From: Todd Volkert To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09f9db14e0fb5eb0472b6f0f9 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --00c09f9db14e0fb5eb0472b6f0f9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > 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. > I'm adding the full license to the trunk now, but with all due respect, I'm gonna wait for an IPMC opinion on this one, since we've already gone out with the 1.1 and 1.2 releases with the existing license (and since this is an incubating release). Don't get me wrong: I'm not against re-tagging if it's required; but no sense in calling off the vote prematurely. > > 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. > Just to be clear what you're saying, you want something like the following at the very top of the LICENSE file: "For Apache Tomcat's Servlet 2.5 implementation, the Smack Jabber API, and the Groovy scripting engine:" Saying that they're Apache 2.0 licensed in the NOTICE file would seem to be sufficient, given that users and reviewers will see the Apache license at the top of the LICENSE file. The other licenses are shown to what they pertain because otherwise it'd be hard to search for them in the LICENSE file. If we add the afformentioned line at the top, should we also add "and for Apache Pivot"? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting, it seems like we're catering to the lowest common denominator here. > > 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? > Actually, IANAL, but I think you're wrong. VMware hasn't licensed the file to the ASF - they've donated it to the ASF -- but are still covered by copyright protection. --00c09f9db14e0fb5eb0472b6f0f9--