incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache SIS 0.1-incubating Release Candidate #2
Date Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:54:56 GMT
Hi Ant,

Thanks. Do you see any of the below as a blocker to the first release? What extra stuff, specifically,
do you see that wasn't present in the prior where that you +1'ed and thought was OK as a first


On 11/10/10 4:29 PM, "ant elder" <> wrote:

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> I have posted a 2nd candidate for the Apache SIS 0.1-incubating release. The
> source code is at:
> This release addresses the following comments from IPMC members during the
> RC #1 VOTE:
> - add Incubator disclaimer per comments from Ant Elder.
> - add JDOM license to NOTICE.txt and upgrade to apache parent 7 per comments
> from Mark Struberg.
> - note that ROME and Georss-ROME are under the ASLv2 per Kevan Miller's
> comments.
> See the included CHANGES.txt file for details on release contents and latest
> changes. The release was made using the Maven2 release plugin, according to
> Jukka Zitting's notes from Tika-ville:
> Caveat: we aren't publishing to Maven Central yet. I've filed INFRA-3177 [1]
> to make this happen for our next release.
> See the included README.txt file for an example of how to use Apache SIS in
> a Tomcat environment and how to run the demo.
> This plugin creates a Apache SIS 0.1-incubating tag at:
> Please vote on releasing these packages as Apache SIS 0.1-incubating. The
> vote is open for the next 72 hours. Only votes from Incubator PMC are
> binding, but everyone is welcome to check the release candidate and voice
> their approval or disapproval. The vote passes if at least three binding +1
> votes are cast.
> [ ] +1 Release the packages as Apache SIS 0.1-incubating.
> [ ] -1 Do not release the packages because...
> Thanks!
> Cheers,
> Chris
> P.S. Here's my +1.
> [1]

I think this release src distribution has too much unnecessary stuff
in its LICENSE and NOTICE files.

Unfortunately you've hit one of those potentially painful parts of
doing a release on general@ - the contents of the LICENSE and NOTICE
file - and most likely everyone you ask will tell you a slightly
different thing of what it should be like. Here's what I say:

1) Each artifact being released needs to include the licenses for
everything in the artifact (Thats often all in the single LICENSE file
but its also ok to have just the Apache License in the LICENSE file
and any other license somewhere obvious).

2) The NOTICE file has some standard text (see
) and then maybe some mention of other things. More often than not the
mention of other things is unnecessary.

This release is a source only release and AFAICT there is nothing
included in apache-sis-0.1-incubating-src.tar.gz that is licensed with
anything other than the Apache license so the LICENSE text needs to
have just the Apache License text. Similarly the NOTICE file doesn't
need to include anything other than the standard NOTICE text.

If this release was including a binary release artifact then the
LICENSE file of that binary release would need to include the licenses
of any included dependencies, eg i think thats what this src release
LICENSE now has.

If this release was including a binary release artifact then the
NOTICE file should still (IMHO) just include the standard NOTICE text.
All that other stuff that you've now added to the NOTICE shouldn't be
there as none of it is "required third-party notices".

You could argue that it doesn't really matter that there is some extra
stuff in the LICENSE and NOTICE and maybe thats true but as this is
the first Apache release its probably worth having the debate.


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

Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

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