incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Frovarp <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Droids 0.1-incubating RC2
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:23:42 GMT
On 06/15/2011 04:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:35:05PM -0500, Richard Frovarp wrote:
>>> There should be archived VOTE threads on the droids-private list, which were
>>> cc'd to private@incubator.a.o.  Hopefully they were for PPMC membership.  If
>>> not, there will be some cleanup work to do.
>> The votes were handled on the droids-dev list (like they should) and
>> were committer votes. So Bertil and I aren't on the PPMC.
> OK... In my opinion, the intent of the community to make this release is
> perfectly clear.  None of the people who are officially on the PPMC objected
> to it, nor did anyone raise any concerns about the validity of votes from
> Committers who aren't on the PPMC.

In general, votes can come from anyone, so votes from people that aren't 
on the PMC shouldn't be discouraged. In a previous vote, Ross did tell 
me if I needed more binding votes, to come here.

> However, it looks as though Droids isn't *bundling* either JUnit or
> javax.servlet, in either in source or binary form -- you're expecting Maven to
> resolve and install the dependency.  Therefore, I don't believe it's required
> to include the license texts which apply to those components.
> I'm not even sure whether you even need attributions in NOTICE.txt for
> components you aren't bundling.  As best I can tell, the Droids distro archive
> does not contain either source or binary materials belonging to or derived
> from either JUnit or javax.servlet IP.
> In summary, unless someone corrects my interpretation, LICENSE.txt is fine and
> NOTICE.txt has some info which is arguably superfluous, but the presence of
> that extra info does not block the release.  I consider the matter
> provisionally resolved.

Sebb seems to agree with your interpretation. I have fixed the files to 
remove any notices to anything, except for the standard ASF notice. 
License only include AL2. I was unclear on this, as you can't have 
runtime required dependencies on category X items. A project can't 
require Hibernate (LGPL) and claim that it is okay because Apache Maven 
is bringing in the dependency. It was not clear to me how category-B 
should be handled. Consensus is to say nothing if it isn't being 
bundled, so everything has been removed.

> OK.  In my rush, I hadn't noticed that the Maven-generated NOTICE file was just
> a stub rather than a substantially different version of NOTICE.txt.  It's still
> inaccurate because it's incomplete, though:
>          Droids
>          Copyright 2007-2011 The Apache Software Foundation
>          This product includes software developed at
>          The Apache Software Foundation (

I've renamed NOTICE.txt to NOTICE and have updated all the references in 
the poms to Apache Droids, instead of just Droids. This should insure 
that future packages have the correct information.

> Yep.  I double checked and RAT only flags that silly DEPENDENCIES file.
> License headers look good!

Excellent. Thanks.

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

View raw message