Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openejb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openejb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer;
  b=SMsqN7v+CdmiiOzgPbPjSEsqiEqaCkcBxQMJa4RnHKI34RmZdsRwLGdfkgIs+D8t3wH0dRM59rxI6myIjR36yBiSPDIkBZefblgrU6vXgFFqbMW1Torn6MW3OIGilY/vNHZWqo1OEZ2EaDxZV9CRpmx84PtfK/3RwDfloPW/tE4=
  ;
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)
In-Reply-To: <37CD1CD8-2DD0-4637-AB3A-9A9882ED457F@yahoo.com>
References: <1BE9ADAF-BCF2-494E-9BBB-7266E046D963@visi.com>
 <5CB3EBBD-EF00-4A6E-BA6C-9E24000F56AA@gmail.com>
 <97C753FF-9135-4039-9DD0-5274F9D2E659@visi.com>
 <37CD1CD8-2DD0-4637-AB3A-9A9882ED457F@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <22A4FE62-0F14-4D4B-B675-89005B4E17ED@yahoo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0 final (fingers crossed)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 01:02:34 -0700
To: dev@openejb.apache.org

I've updated trunk to include appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files at  
the checkout root (rev 645721 ) and to use the latest maven-remote- 
resources-plugin and resource bundle (rev 645784).  The single  
appended-resources directory does not strike me as a good idea  
(although I may have suggested it).  I'm also not convinced it is  
completely accurate (jdom license is not apache, jmdns is not an  
apache project and has some apparently LGPL classes in the jar)

thanks
david jencks
On Apr 7, 2008, at 1:57 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> sorry for letting these legal goo questions drop off my radar.  I  
> can help fix problems a bit later today.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion about whether we need to redo the  
> vote to fix the generated NOTICE files.  The current ones are  
> definitely wrong and a lot of projects have released artifacts  
> containing similarly wrong NOTICE files.
>
> I'll work on trunk to get the generation up to par and make sure  
> the root svn files look OK....
>
> On Apr 6, 2008, at 10:58 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 6, 2008, at 5:14 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>> As David J noted a week or so back, the svn root at tags/ 
>>> openejb-3.0 needs to contain a LICENSE and NOTICE file. This is  
>>> mandatory, IMO.
>>
>> +1.  Thanks, David!
>>
>>> The NOTICE files in generated jar files, being created using the  
>>> maven-remote-resources-plugin, aren't proper. NOTICE files should  
>>> only contain legally required attributions, not a transitive list  
>>> of dependencies. IMO, they should be updated. However, as long as  
>>> the NOTICE files also contain the required attributions, I would  
>>> say this is probably a decision for the PMC.
>>
>> A project decision, definitely.  I encourage everyone to update  
>> their votes if they feel they need to.
>>
>> Any thoughts on resolution either for this or future releases?
>>
>>> The generated WAR file in openejb-itests-web did not contain a  
>>> license/notice file. The notice files for all itests artifacts  
>>> should be reviewed. I don't have internet access, at the moment,  
>>> but recall noticing a problem. Will take a look, once I'm  
>>> connected again...
>
> The maven-remote-resources-plugin seems to like to put the files in  
> wars in WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/LICENSE.  The only way I've found  
> to get them in META-INF is to include them as hardcoded resources  
> in webapp.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>> The file container/openejb-jee/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/ 
>>> jee/oejb3/EjbLink.java has an incorrect src license header. I'll  
>>> fix on trunk...
>>
>> Great.  Merged that into our branch.
>>
>>
>> Given the legal tweaks, I think the best course of action is to  
>> extend the vote out another 2 days (i.e. ending 72 hours from  
>> now).  If someone wants to rescind or change their vote, they'll  
>> have time.
>>
>> Thanks, Kevan!
>>
>> -David
>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 4, 2008, at 8:51 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> All right.  TCK issues were fixed last night.  Joe kicked off a  
>>>> run early this morning and everything is running clean.  I've  
>>>> also run the itests on standalone and a dozen versions of tomcat  
>>>> and everything looks good there as well.  After three weeks or  
>>>> so, it seems we're at the finish line.
>>>>
>>>> If there does turn out to be an issue with this build, I think  
>>>> the best game plan would be to still release this and get a  
>>>> 3.0.1 next week.  The 3.0-beta-2 release is good but has a large  
>>>> number of limitations and bugs.  We need to get something out to  
>>>> cover it up.
>>>>
>>>> And now... the binaries ....!
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage/3.0/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage/3.0/
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage/repo/
>>>>
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/tags/openejb-3.0/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's my +1
>>>>
>>>> Vote will be open for 72 hours.  Happy voting!
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>
>>
>