incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira ...@odoko.co.uk>
Subject Re: Feedback from Incubator Vote
Date Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:27:01 GMT


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Ali Lown wrote:
> It looks like RC3 will fail at the Incubator vote. (This is both fine
> and expected)

Yep.

> This also conveniently lets us merge some of the other fixes (for
> example the broken translations/eclipse) in for RC4.

Okay, but don't absorb *too* many changes.
 
> The main problem seems to (still) be the third_party/* files
> (particularly in the source release - I don't know if they are okay to
> be included in the 'binary' release).

A *source* release must be source only. Third party jars aren't source,
so shouldn't be included. They are fine in a binary release.

> It looks like the easiest way to handle this is to have them all
> downloaded during the get-third-party ant task.

That would be a reasonable thing for the build script in the src
distribution to do, but so long as there is some way (even manual) for
that to happen, I don't see it as an issue.

> Some comments were raised about the src/python/api files not being
> correctly licensed. Manually inspecting them it appears rat wasn't
> complaining because they are all Apache licensed, but we have
> 'Licensed under the Apache License' used for some, and (the correct?)
> 'Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation' in others.

The first would be valid for code written elsewhere, and the latter for
code being maintained here. Which are they?

> We (may) need to file for an ECCN given we use bouncy-castle. (Is this
> only an issue if we include it, if we have it fetched by a separate
> task (given the IPMC don't seem to like having the jars shipped with
> Wave) is it still a problem?)

The ECCN stuff is for 'exporting encryption'. If we release a
convenience binary, then as far as the US govt is concerned, we need to
do the ECCN stuff.

Upayavira

Mime
View raw message