jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Date Wed, 02 May 2012 20:44:57 GMT
Hi,

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Michael Dürig <mduerig@apache.org> wrote:
> I noted however, that some of the files in
> /oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/mk/fs do not have the Apache
> copyright header. We should fix this first. I found these files by manual
> inspection but I guess the rat plugin should have found them too.

I spotted them when setting up the rat checks [1] and just added
excludes for now until the situation with those files is resolved. See
also OAK-56 [2].

I figured I'd resolve the issue before clearing the 0.2 milestone, but
just forgot about it.

> So we should also take a look at what's wrong with that.

The troublesome files come with the following header:

/*
 * Copyright 2004-2011 H2 Group. Multiple-Licensed under the H2 License,
 * Version 1.0, and under the Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0
 * (http://h2database.com/html/license.html).
 * Initial Developer: H2 Group
 */

I suppose they may well have originally written by Thomas and that he
could simply relicense them to the ASF, but until then we should treat
them as EPLv1 code and mention that in the LICENSE.txt file.

In general it should be fine to treat minor issues like this as bugs
to be fixed in the next release, perhaps with an extra disclaimer
added to the release notes. However, since EPLv1 is considered a
"category B" license [3], we actually shouldn't even be including the
code in source form. Therefore I think this indeed counts as a release
blocker.

Thomas, do you have more insight on how we should handle these files?
Can we get them from a binary dependency like H2, or could we for now
simply replace the code with equivalent Commons IO (or Java IO) calls
as mentioned in OAK-56?

Once the issue is resolved, I think we should just re-cut the release
as 0.2.1. Or then we simply skip 0.2 and go with 0.3 at the end of
May.

[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1332148
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-56
[3] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Mime
View raw message