incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henry Saputra <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Date Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:05:08 GMT
Ah, I saw disclaimer in the website [1] which I thought enough for incubator.
But checking the branding guide [2] seems like incubator need to
include DISCLAIMER file along with NOTICE and LICENSE files, so this
could be blocker?
I think that is the one that could be blocker, but other probably
could be deferred to next release given Drill open tickets for them?

Thanks for detail review Justin, need to update my check tool.


On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Justin Mclean <> wrote:
> (resending as it look like the original email got caught up in moderation)
> Hi
> -1 binding.
> There several issues with LICENSE and NOTICE that need to be fixed/explained before I'd
vote +1. I am concerned about the category B licences in particular. The required DISCLAIMER
file is also missing.
> - DISCLAIMER file missing
> - incorrect year in NOTICE file (should be 2014 not 2013)
> - make notice file more in line with standard NOTICE file [1]
> - LICENSE file is not correct - looks like quite a few things need to be removed as they
are not actually bundled in the source artefact. The LICENSE file in the source artefact should
only reference software that is actually bundled in the source release.
> - LICENSE file doesn't need to contain references to Apache licensed software only MIT
and BSD software. Each bundled Apache software may modify the NOTICE file.
> - LICENSE issue "The compiled Apache Drill distribution includes the following sources/binaries."
is incorrect as a source distribution shouldn't normally contain binaries.
> - LICENSE refers to CDDL licensed, CPL licensed, EPL licensed and MPL licensed software
- all which are category B licences. Are these actually included in the source release and
if so how? And if they are included why are they not in the NOTICE file (as per [2]) If not
included why are these mentioned in the the LICENCES file at all?
> What's good:
> - artefact contains incubating
> - signatures and md5 good
> - no binary files in source release (other than a few files used for testing)
> - source files have apache header (although some testing .json and the like look to be
missing headers)
> - can compile from source
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 1.
> 2.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message