You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Luc Maisonobe <lu...@spaceroots.org> on 2014/12/19 14:19:09 UTC
[CANCEL][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Math 3.4
Le 19/12/2014 00:19, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Math 3.4.
>
> Note that since [math] now uses git, access to the tag is slightly
> different from other components. To clone a fresh tag, run this command
> (beware I have split it in 2 lines below):
>
> git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/commons-math.git \
> --branch MATH_3_4_RC1
>
> To verify the tag (as git does sign tags with GPG), use this:
>
> cd commons-math
> git tag -v MATH_3_4_RC1
>
> The site will be available in the staging area, it takes a few hours to
> transfer from my machine:
> <http://commons.staging.apache.org/proper/commons-math/>
>
> Distribution files:
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/math/>
>
> Maven artifacts:
>
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1066/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.4/>
>
>
> [ ] +1 Release it.
> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
>
> This vote will close in 72 hours, at 2014-12-21T23:15:00Z (this is UTC
> time).
This vote is canceled in order to clean out both LICENSE and NOTICE files.
Several attributions were in NOTICE that should not be there, but also
the license from a part extracted from Scipy was missing in LICENSE,
which is a critical problem.
Thanks to everyone who contributed to the review.
best regards,
Luc
>
> best regards,
> Luc
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] About cancelling the vote because of "Scipy" (Was: [CANCEL][VOTE][RC1]
..)
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <lu...@spaceroots.org>.
Le 19/12/2014 15:45, Gilles a écrit :
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:19:09 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> This vote will close in 72 hours, at 2014-12-21T23:15:00Z (this is UTC
>>> time).
>>
>> This vote is canceled in order to clean out both LICENSE and NOTICE
>> files.
>>
>> Several attributions were in NOTICE that should not be there, but also
>> the license from a part extracted from Scipy was missing in LICENSE,
>> which is a critical problem.
>
> I'm not a lawyer...
> But if this is deemed a "critical problem", I don't understand why
> the release process does not always involve a legal review (by a
> lawyer)! ;-}
>
> As it is, I do not agree that it was a "critical problem" that the
> "LICENSE" file did not contain a/the Scipy license because, when I
> used the referenced code, the source file contained only this:
>
> # ******NOTICE***************
> # optimize.py module by Travis E. Oliphant
> #
> # You may copy and use this module as you see fit with no
> # guarantee implied provided you keep this notice in all copies.
> # *****END NOTICE************
>
> Without hairy interpretation, it would seem to me that the "NOTICE"
> file was indeed the right place for giving credit, as requested.
>
> Furthermore there was no license file among the Debian-packaged
> files of Scipy.
> Neither Python nor Scipy is a dependency for Commons Math.
> Neither source nor binary code is redistributed.
>
> The Python code was used in the same way that we use code published
> on Wikipedia, MathWorld, or other references (a.o. "R") that provide
> algorithm descriptions; yet I don't see any of their license or
> "terms of use" in the "LICENCE" file.
>
> Hence, why should the Scipy license be mentioned in "LICENSE"?
Because of this:
<http://www.scipy.org/scipylib/license.html>
It is a classical BSD-like license, and as such must be in the LICENSE
file, just as the other ones. Fortunately, it is a classical one.
>
> Please clarify the situation for this specific case, so that we
> can learn where we can stop spending time on legalese nonsense.
Hope this helps.
best regards,
Luc
>
>
> Regards,
> Gilles
>
>>
>> Thanks to everyone who contributed to the review.
>>
>> best regards,
>> Luc
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
[Math] About cancelling the vote because of "Scipy" (Was:
[CANCEL][VOTE][RC1] ..)
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
Hi.
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:19:09 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> This vote will close in 72 hours, at 2014-12-21T23:15:00Z (this is
>> UTC
>> time).
>
> This vote is canceled in order to clean out both LICENSE and NOTICE
> files.
>
> Several attributions were in NOTICE that should not be there, but
> also
> the license from a part extracted from Scipy was missing in LICENSE,
> which is a critical problem.
I'm not a lawyer...
But if this is deemed a "critical problem", I don't understand why
the release process does not always involve a legal review (by a
lawyer)! ;-}
As it is, I do not agree that it was a "critical problem" that the
"LICENSE" file did not contain a/the Scipy license because, when I
used the referenced code, the source file contained only this:
# ******NOTICE***************
# optimize.py module by Travis E. Oliphant
#
# You may copy and use this module as you see fit with no
# guarantee implied provided you keep this notice in all copies.
# *****END NOTICE************
Without hairy interpretation, it would seem to me that the "NOTICE"
file was indeed the right place for giving credit, as requested.
Furthermore there was no license file among the Debian-packaged
files of Scipy.
Neither Python nor Scipy is a dependency for Commons Math.
Neither source nor binary code is redistributed.
The Python code was used in the same way that we use code published
on Wikipedia, MathWorld, or other references (a.o. "R") that provide
algorithm descriptions; yet I don't see any of their license or
"terms of use" in the "LICENCE" file.
Hence, why should the Scipy license be mentioned in "LICENSE"?
Please clarify the situation for this specific case, so that we
can learn where we can stop spending time on legalese nonsense.
Regards,
Gilles
>
> Thanks to everyone who contributed to the review.
>
> best regards,
> Luc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org