incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating
Date Fri, 25 Nov 2011 19:01:23 GMT

On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>> 
>>> Alan,
>>> 
>>>>> It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list;
it
>>> was my understanding that votes take 72 hours.
>>> 
>>> Because the only change was in the NOTICE and DISCLAIMER files from
>>> previous RC, our champion (Chris C) suggested we could run a quicker lazy
>>> 24 hour vote.
>> 
>> Yeah, I'm not sure the vote can be shortened.  I could be wrong.  If it can then
I totally agree with the inclination to get goin' with this release.  I'm sorry it's had so
many first and starts.
>> 
>>>>> Anyway, I've found some problems in the NOTICE file in that Kafka
>>> uses/ship NUnit but it's not in the NOTICE file.
>>> 
>>> Quoting sebb and Kafka's champion (Chris C) discussed this in the last vote
>>> -
>>> 
>>>>>> 4) Your NOTICE file includes lot's of "This product includes X,
>>> developed by X.org" Your notice file should only include notices that you
>>> are *required* to have. Don't include acknowledgements in your notice file
>>> just for completeness.
>>> 
>>>>>> Just to be clear: why not?
>>> 
>>> *>>> The NOTICE file should be as short as possible, but no shorter.
>>> *
>>> Having said that, we also don't have any jar like "NUnit" in the release
>>> artifacts.
>> 
>>  B     ./bin/../clients/csharp/lib/nunit/2.5.9/nunit.framework.dll
>> 
>> Reading the license
>> 
>> http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=license&r=2.5.9
>> 
>> it seems to me that an acknowledgment  in the product documentation is required.
 Am I misreading their license?  (wouldn't be the first time)
>> 
> 
> I don't remember that license coming up before so the easiest way to
> find out is to bring it up at legal-discuss@. A similar question was
> raised in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59 and the
> conclusion there was it didn't have to be in the NOTICE. This is not
> exactly the same but it is similar so maybe it would be ok for this
> release could go ahead assuming its ok and raise a legal JIRA to
> confirm that for the future?

The tgz files are the product that's being distributed.  It's clear that the NUnit license
requires an acknowledgement somewhere in the product.


Regards,
Alan


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


Mime
View raw message