incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:20:10 GMT
Note distributing OpenSSL mean you need to update the Trafodion entry on

http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/

to also include your dist folder.

On 1 Jun 2016 6:54 p.m., "Steve Varnau" <steve.varnau@esgyn.com> wrote:

> Justin,
>
> Thanks for clarifying the issues here.  I will write JIRAs to fix the two
> minor issues in next release (clarify the rescinded BSD-4 clause and remove
> the GPL part of the dual license).
>
> Looking at the openssl issue, I want to figure out why we are statically
> linking the libraries.  If there is a key reason it needs to be static
> rather than dynamically linked, then I'll want to go to legal-discuss and
> ask whether we can distribute it, given license changes in the works.
>
> If we can change the build to change to dynamic linking and not include
> openssl in the binaries, then perhaps the expedient thing is to go ahead
> with this release, minus the client binary. And re-package it for next
> release.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Steve
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 8:15 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > +1 (binding) to release source package, but -1 for the client connivence
> > binary
> > until the 4 clause BSD licensing issue is resolved.
> >
> > For the source released I checked:
> > - all files have incubating
> > - signatures check out
> > - disclaimer exists
> > - LICENSE and NOTICE good
> > - No unexpected binary in source
> > - All ASF licensed file have ASF headers
> >
> > The source LICENSE has a minor issue. It mentions the 4 clause BSD
> license
> > which is not compatible with the Apache license (only the 2 and 3 clause
> > BSD
> > licenses are) [1][2]. In this case the extra clause has been recinded [3]
> > you
> > might want to reword/state that in the license.
> >
> > But that does mean there is an issue with the client binary release as
> > that
> > includes OpenSSL which lists a 6 clause BSD style license (similar to a 4
> > clause
> > BSD license) and SSLeay under a 4 clause BSD license. You may need to
> > clarify
> > this on legal discuss. It may be that their intent to move to an Apache
> > licence
> > may mean you can hold off on doing anything but I’m not 100% sure. [4][5]
> >
> > I would also remove the GPL license text from the server’s LICENSE file
> to
> > make
> > it clear which license it’s included under. If something is dual licensed
> > you
> > select which licence you want to use.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> > 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-185
> > 3. https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
> > 4. https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2015/08/01/cla/
> > 5. https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/License
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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