incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
Date Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:00:57 GMT

On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Leo Simons wrote:

<snip>
>
> Please note, I didn't actually vote on the release, I just pointed out
> a few things that probably ought to change. I didn't vote because I
> don't want to go and review all those very many binaries (or the build
> process that creates them) and I'm not familiar enough with the
> codebase to somehow "know" that all those binaries are somehow ok. If
> I had thought these minor tidbits that I raise are enough to actually
> vote -1, I would've made that clear, sorry that it wasn't.
>
> Even if I _did_ vote, releases are majority votes, and 2 +1 beats a
> single -1. Its just you need 3 votes.
>
> In other words, all you need is one more +1 :)

Nick and Bryant,
I agree with Leo that the more accurate LICENSE/NOTICE files are  
preferrable. I probably would not change my vote for this reason.  
However, I'll make this easier... Digging some more, I found the  
following issues, which I missed earlier:

axiom-api and axiom-impl jars
   * both contain NOTICES with "Portions copyright IBM" statements.  
Those aren't mentioned in your NOTICE

xml-apis
   * NOTICE contains copyright statements for ibm, sun, and w3c
   * contains additional license documentation (i.e. LICENSE.dom- 
documentation.txt, LICENSE.dom-software.txt, and LICENSE.sax.txt). If  
applicable, they need to be reflected in the wink license.

jcip-annotations
   *  i believe that this is licensed under creative commons  
attribution, yet is not mentioned in either the license or the notice

I'm changing my vote to a -1.

--kevan
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message