incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.4-incubating RC1
Date Sat, 18 Jul 2015 00:01:16 GMT
Hi,

Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) until the MPL issue can be resolved / explained, other issues
can be fixed next release. For the MPL issue it may be that "For small amounts of source that
is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in source form” may apply. [2]

For the source release I checked:
- filename contains incubating
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE has minor issues + MPL issue [2]
- NOTICE good
- Some unexpected binaries in source (see below)
- All source file have headers
- Can compile form source?

LiCENSE is missing:
 - MIT licensed normalize.css (see ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/public/css/blurconsole.css
+ ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/bootstrap/less/normalize.less)
- MIT/BSD licensed polyfill (see ./docs/resources/js/respond.min.js)

There is an issue with ./blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/tagmanager/tagmanager.js as this
is MPL licensed [2] which is weak copy left and considered a category B license. In this case
it looks like it isn’t been handled correctly as it being included in source not binary
form. I’m not sure how this should be handled given there is no compiled JS form.

There are a couple of test files that contain compiled code, can this be produced via the
build process?
./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test1/test1.jar
./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test2/test2.jar

Something a little odd that caught my eye is all of the ./distribution/src/main/resources-hadoop1/notices/*.jar.src
files. Is there any reason for these files to be in the source release? It look that they
are used to generate the binary NOTICE file?

For the binary release you may want to check the LICENSE as it is identical to the source
release [3]. For the binary NOTICE file a minor issue in that there is no need to repeat "This
product includes software developed by The Apache Software Foundation “ [4].

Re compiling from source some instructions in the README would be helpful as it seems a mvn
install in the top directory may not do what is expected. (As far as I can see it seems to
be doing a rat check and nothing else?)
	
Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
2. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
4. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundle-asf-product
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message