maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Date Thu, 04 Jul 2013 22:47:03 GMT

On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:06 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4 July 2013 20:35, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am withdrawing my -1 on the basis of the feedback I have received from
>> legal-discuss.
> 
> The question to legal-discuss was specifically about test data, not test code.
> 
> Does the reply to your query about test data also apply to test code?
> As I read it, that question was not asked.
> 
> There are several test code files (and related poms) that don't have AL headers.
> 
> I think it would be worth clarifying the issue with regard to test
> code before assuming that the answers also apply to test code.
> 
>> My vote is now +0 as I have not tested the distribution and I am waiting
>> for somebody else on the PMC to do the running and make a call on whether
>> we need to fix the NOTICE file for this release.
> 
> There are several problems with the NOTICE and/or LICENSE files.
> One is that the NOTICE file mentions 3rd party software, but there are
> no corresponding entries in the LICENSE file. If the 3rd party
> software is not part of the source release, then the references need
> to be removed.
> 
> If the 3rd party software is included (presumably as source) then the
> relevant licenses need to be included in the LICENSE file, or included
> as separate files linked from the LICENSE file.
> 

All the licenses we use require a copy of the license, so those are missing and ideally there
would be one for each coordinate of a dependency that we use. That you use a dependency in
binary form (vs source) only does not preclude adherence to the requirements of the license.
The software cannot be used in source form and requires the dependencies to do anything to
run so they are not excluded in the source distribution. The license files technically should
be included so that can be improved. A licenses directory with the licenses contained within
is what I've typically seen and if we automate this would be easier. 

> Has anyone established whether there is any 3rd party software
> included in the source release?
> 

To my knowledge all dependencies are in binary form, and there are no excerpts or sections
of third party code included in source form in our codebase and therefore none in the source
release.

>> I intend testing the distribution tomorrow unless this vote gets cancelled
>> ;-)
>> 
>> - Stephen
>> 
>> On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> 
>>> Fair enough.
>>> 
>>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote because
>>>> of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
>>>> 
>>>> Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the test data
>>>> issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the bits I
>>> am
>>>> focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my point
>>> of
>>>> view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from
>>>> legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is that with
>>>> the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to cancel the
>>> vote
>>>> now.
>>>> 
>>>> I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt answer
>>> (from
>>>> a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no vote to
>>> push
>>>> them with.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <jason@tesla.io> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It will
>>>>> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we
>>> might as
>>>>> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an
>>>>> exception can be made.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for
>>>>> compliance and I'll cut it again.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>>>>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets
>>> and
>>>>>> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do
not
>>>>>> currently have an exception for test data sets.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data
>>> sets,
>>>>>> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the
>>> NOTICE
>>>>>> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as
>>> nobody
>>>>> on
>>>>>> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation
of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all
the
>>> test
>>>>>> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want
to do
>>>>> as
>>>>>> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the
risk
>>>>> of
>>>>>> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
>>>>>> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to
>>> change
>>>>>> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file
to
>>>>>> cover the test data.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance
>>> role
>>>>>> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - Stephen
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <baerrach@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious
>>> text:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> =========================================================================
>>>>>>>> ==  NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>> ==  the Apache License, Version 2.0,
>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>> ==  in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> =========================================================================
>>>>>>> We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
>>> 
>>>  -- Shakespeare
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Sent from my phone
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> 

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

Our achievements speak for themselves. What we have to keep track
of are our failures, discouragements and doubts. We tend to forget
the past difficulties, the many false starts, and the painful
groping. We see our past achievements as the end result of a
clean forward thrust, and our present difficulties as
signs of decline and decay.

 -- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition







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