incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bryant Luk <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
Date Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:53:24 GMT
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Bryant Luk <> wrote:
> Hi Kevan,
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Kevan Miller <> wrote:
>> 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
> I've added the axiom and jcip-annotations notices (and removed the
> unnecessary notices I think) in:
> Added the Creative Commons license for jcip-annotations to:
> I would appreciate a review of these files for the binary release .
> The source release will have the basic Apache License and notice as
> originally suggested by Leo.  Need to work some simple Maven magic but
> wanted to see if these files were ok first.
> Upon some further investigation, I'll remove the xml-api dependency
> since that isn't absolutely required for the Wink/Abdera functionality
> to work (so everything that was in the release candidate minus the
> xml-apis would also be in the future binary distribution) so that's
> why I didn't add the xml-api notice/license.
> Thanks for any feedback anyone can provide.

I've moved the binary distribution NOTICE and LICENSE file to the
following location which will be used only for the binary

The following will be used for the source only distribution:

Sorry for the noise but would still appreciate feedback for the above
to make sure we're doing it right.  Thanks.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message