Mailing-List: contact general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of Thomas.DeWeese@kodak.com
 designates 192.232.121.200 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <424FE720.1040809@Kodak.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 08:52:48 -0400
From: Thomas DeWeese <Thomas.DeWeese@Kodak.com>
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@xmlgraphics.apache.org
CC: Batik Dev <batik-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Batik 1.6
References: <424EB0D4.8090409@Kodak.com>
 <20050403113241.8876.DEV.JEREMIAS@greenmail.ch>
In-Reply-To: <20050403113241.8876.DEV.JEREMIAS@greenmail.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Jeremias,

Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> +1 for the release of Batik 1.6, provided you can answer the question
> below with yes.

    Thanks.

> If there are known issues that are non-critical this is ok, especially
> if they are documented.
> 
> Yes, you will have to update the LICENSE file for pdf-transcoder.jar to
> ALv2 since it applies to the "batik-1_6" tag on the FOP codebase. 

    I've already done this locally.

> Xerces 2.5.0, however, was released in 2003 under the older ALv1.1 
> so you shouldn't update this one unless you upgrade to the current 
> Xerces release prior to doing the release.

    This is what I thought.  I just wanted to make sure that making a
release that included ALv1.1 would be Ok.

> Rhino: Now this is interesting. Cocoon uses Rhino-1.6R1 and claims it is
> distributed under the MPL 1.1 but when I download either 1.6R1 or
> 1.5R4.1 (the one Batik uses according to the license file) then I see a
> reference to NPL 1.1 for both.  The website says the same [1]. I found a
> post by Greg Stein from Jan 2004 (on the discontinued licensing mailing
> list) that NPL and MPL 1.0 are not ok, while MPL 1.1 is ok. Anyway, I
> don't see this as a showstopper for the release as we're not doing
> anything else than Cocoon. But I want to get this clarified.

    Are there four licenses NPL 1.0, MPL 1.0 (both not OK),
NPL 1.1 (unknown status), MPL 1.1 (is OK) or was there a typo
above?

    Also you say this isn't a show stopper but you want to get it
clarified.  Does this mean that as far as you are concerned I can
go ahead, or should I wait on the clarification?

> One question: Is the pdf-transcoder.jar revision 1.9 [2] the one you
> created from the "batik-1_6" tag in FOP? I can't be sure from the log
> entry.

    Yes, it is, I forgot to include it in the log message (I would
have updated the log entry if we were using SVN ;).

> Lastly, I'd have preferred that the final vote only ran on batik-dev
> (for the Batik committers) and xmlgraphics-general (for the PMC).
> There's a bit too much noise ATM.

    Do I really need to run another vote on batik-dev?  Cameron
has already given his +1 twice.  BTW the mod-box doesn't seem to
be collecting mails for April...

> [1] http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/download.html
> [2] http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-batik/lib/pdf-transcoder.jar?rev=1.9&view=log

> On 02.04.2005 16:48:52 Thomas DeWeese wrote:
> 
>>Hi PMC,
>>
>>    I am requesting a vote on releasing Batik 1.6.
>>
>>    I have created a tag "batik-1_6" that indicates the code
>>under consideration.  All issues raised on batik-dev (basically
>>just comments on problems with javadocs) have been addressed.
>>
>>    Sorry, I don't seem to be able to track down the thread on
>>mail-archives.eu.apache.org.
>>
>>    I consider there to be one potentially known bug with regards
>>to setting documents on the Canvas, I believe the bug has been in
>>Batik since it's last release 1.5.1 and had, to date, not been
>>noticed.  I considered it more risky to try and fix at this point
>>than to leave the code as is:
>>
>>	http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34234
>>
>>    The only other issue I can think of is that the current LICENSE
>>files for pdf-transcoder.jar and xerces_2_5_0.jar are the old 1.1
>>Apache License.  I will update the pdf-transcoder license to the
>>2.0, I am unsure if I can do that for xerces since I think the
>>jar we are using was released under the 1.1 license, and I would
>>rather not update the jar at this late date - Opinions?
>>
>>    Also along these lines there was some question on the Rhino
>>License (Mozilla) when Apache adopted the 2.0 license, last I
>>heard we could continue to use it, but things may have changed
>>without me knowing about it.
>>
>>    Any other comments or concerns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremias Maerki
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org