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 Whirr version 0.4.0-incubating
Date Sat, 19 Mar 2011 01:28:19 GMT
On 18 March 2011 22:02, Tom White <tom.e.white@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18 March 2011 16:43, Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-18, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>>> But the main issue is that the binary distribution contains lots of
>>>> 3rd party products which are not mentioned in either the NOTICE file
>>>> or the LICENSE file.
>>>
>>> They likely are supposed to be in the - unfortunately empty - license
>>> files inside the lib directory.
>>>
>>>> Whether it requires attribution or not, 3rd party product licenses
>>>> must be recorded in the LICENSE file.
>
> Right, we definitely need to fix this, per
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license.
>
>>>
>>>> The standard method is to include the text in the file, but it may be
>>>> allowable to just include a pointer to the license elsewhere in the
>>>> distribution.
>>>
>>> This pointer is missing, you are correct.
>>>
>>>> I think these issues are sufficient to block the release.
>>>
>>> Of the binary "convenience build".  If the whirr project wanted to
>>> release the source tarball alone, the problems you have found wouldn't
>>> apply.  The source tarball looks good to me.
>>
>> The NOTICE file includes attributions for two products that are not present.
>> AIUI it's important that NOTICE only contains *required* attributions
>> because the NOTICEs have to passed on to downstream users.
>
> Both products are present (jsr250-api-1.0.jar and jersey-core-1.4.jar)

Sorry, it was not clear - I was referring to the source tarball, which
does not contain any 3rd party libraries.

> and these are the only ones that contain required attributions (as far
> as I can tell). So I believe the NOTICE file is correct.

It may be for the binary release, but if it is decided to release
source only, it is not correct.

>>
>> The ------------ divider lines should be removed (not a blocker) and
>> the year should be updated.
>>
>> Also, the lib directory is full of licence files for products that are
>> not present.
>> It's not necessary for everything in SVN to be in the source archive,
>> though everything in the source archive must be in SVN (or be
>> derivable directly from it)
>> This is confusing.
>
> It looks like the old LICENSE files in lib were mistakenly not removed
> when the JAR versions were updated (e.g. guava-r06-LICENSE.txt ->
> guava-r08-LICENSE.txt) or removed since the last release. I agree this
> is confusing and they should be removed.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to check the release candidate.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>

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


Mime
View raw message