incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Mesos 0.11.0-incubating (RC3)
Date Wed, 29 May 2013 22:49:04 GMT
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>wrote:

> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Your notice still looks wrong, for example, boto-2.0b2.zip license
> > says that the copyright notice should be included in all copies of the
> > software, and the boto README has :
> >
> > Copyright (c) 2006-2010 Mitch Garnaat <mitch@garnaat.org>
> > Copyright (c) 2010, Eucalyptus Systems, Inc.
> > All rights reserved.
> >
> > Which is not on the Notice, which now only have :
> >
> > Apache Mesos
> > Copyright 2012, The Apache Software Foundation
> >
> > This product includes software developed by The Apache Software
> > Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> >
> > Note that the year is also wrong.
> >
> >
> > Similar comments apply to the copyright info from glog, the function
> > gettimeofday, etc
> >
> > Which should bring your Notice to something like :
> >
> > Apache Mesos
> > Copyright 2013, The Apache Software Foundation
> >
> > This product includes software developed at The Apache Software
> > Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> >
> > This product includes software developed by Google Inc
> > Copyright (c) 2008, Google Inc.
> > All rights reserved.
> >
> > This product includes software developed by Jouni Malinen and
> contributors
> > Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi> and contributors
> > All Rights Reserved.
> >
> > Having said that, you will need to do this exercise for all third
> > party dependencies that you have in your release.
>
> Hi, I'm sorry that I don't have the time to participate in this thread
> fully
> and perform a thorough review of the release candidate, but
> respinning an RC in order to add copyright notices to NOTICE
> doesn't sound right.
>
>     http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
>
>     Modifications to NOTICE
>
>     NOTICE is reserved for a certain subset of legally required
> notifications
>     which are not satisfied by either the text of LICENSE or the presence
> of
>     licensing information embedded within the dependency subtree. Aside
> from
>     Apache-licensed dependencies which supply NOTICE files of their own,
> it is
>     uncommon for a dependency to require additions to NOTICE.
>
>     Copyright notifications which have been relocated from source files
>     (rather than removed) must be preserved in NOTICE. However, elements
> such
>     as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD and MIT licenses
> need
>     not be duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in
> their
>     original locations.
>
>     It is important to keep NOTICE as brief and simple as possible, as each
>     addition places a burden on downstream consumers. Do not add anything
> to
>     NOTICE which is not legally required.
>
> See LEGAL-59, LEGAL-62 and LEGAL-155 for the back story.
>
> The "Licensing HowTo" linked above is supposed to provide a formulaic
> approach
> for generating LICENSE and NOTICE.  Hopefully, LICENSE and NOTICE files
> which
> conform to its recommendations will not get any -1 votes from IPMC members.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
>
Thanks for the pointers Marvin, based on [1] I'm changing my vote to +0 as
I haven't looked into any other aspects of the release other then legal
files.

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices


-- 
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

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