incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom White <tom.e.wh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Whirr version 0.4.0-incubating
Date Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:39:11 GMT
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:28 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Whirr can't be used without these libraries, so it seems relevant to
include references to them in NOTICE. Or are you suggesting a
different NOTICE file for each distribution?

I've made all the other changes that you and Stefan suggested for the
next release candidate.

Thanks,
Tom

>
>>>
>>> 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