taverna-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gale Naylor <Ga...@noventussolutions.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Taverna Command-line Tool 3.1.0-incubating RC2
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2016 16:01:37 GMT
Hello,

I am finding University of Manchester copyright notices on many of the
files in taverna-provenanceconnector. This is not allowed, right? (
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers)

For example:
src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/provenance/api/ProvenanceAccess.java

and all the java files in
/src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/provenance/lineageservice/types/

Gale

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 6:16 PM Gale Naylor <GaleN@noventussolutions.com>
wrote:

> Starting the review process...
>
> ------------------------------------------
> UP-FRONT CHECKS
> ------------------------------------------
> The MD5 checksums in the [VOTE] email are the same as the SHA1 checksums.
> I'm using the downloaded MD5 and SHA-1.
>
> (Question) I'm curious what r13865 means:
>   https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/taverna/source/rc2/
> (r13865)
>
> I didn't see the commit ID in the [VOTE] email. Did I miss it?
>
> ------------------------------------------
> LICENSES - THIRD-PARTY.properties file
> ------------------------------------------
>
> The list of # Already used licenses in project : includes
>
> # - GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1
> Isn't this a category-x license? (It doesn't show up in the
> "Please fill in the missing licenses" list.)
>
>
> Missing licenses:
> # http://x-stream.github.io/license.html - this link says BSD (but not
> which type);
> should this copyright be included in our Notice file?
>
> org.aopalliance--com.springsource.org.aopalliance--1.0.0  - no license
> listed
>
> # https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/blob/jdom-1.1/core/LICENSE.txt  -
> this link has a copyright;
> include in Notice file? What do we use for "type" of license? "Copyright?"
> Or is this also a "JDOM License" like
> org.jdom--com.springsource.org.jdom--1.1.0?
>
> # http://www.xmlpull.org/  - no license listed
>
> Category B licenses?
> Aren't these listed under category-b, binary release only? Or do they meet
> the exception
> for allowing in a source release? ("For small amounts of source that is
> directly
> consumed by the ASF product at runtime in source form, and for which that
> source is unmodified and unlikely to be changed ...")
>
> javax.transaction--com.springsource.javax.transaction--1.1.0 - CDDL 1.0
>
> org.aspectj--com.springsource.org.aspectj.runtime--1.6.0 - Eclipse Public
> License 1.0
> org.aspectj--com.springsource.org.aspectj.weaver--1.6.0 - Eclipse Public
> License 1.0
>
> That's as far as I can get today. Will do the rest of the review tomorrow.
>
> Gale
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:18 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1 June 2016 at 12:01, Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org> wrote:
>> > I am pleased to be calling this vote for the source release of
>> >
>> >   Apache Taverna Engine 3.1.0-incubating
>> >   Apache Taverna Common Activities 2.1.0-incubating
>> >   Apache Taverna Command-line Tool 3.1.0-incubating
>> > ..
>> > Build the release candidate *in the above order*, using:
>>
>> Sorry I mixed up the order in the checksums which were immediately
>> above in this vote email - to clarify the build order is:
>>
>> taverna-engine
>> taverna-common-activities
>> taverna-commandline
>>
>> The reason is that command line depends on common-activities, which
>> depend on taverna-engine, all in the same version as being released.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps for the next vote emails I will include the full URIs to the
>> folders rather than just ../rc2/
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons
>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>
>

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