You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to xap-dev@incubator.apache.org by Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> on 2007/02/07 22:03:27 UTC
[VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Xapians,
I have posted a release candidate at:
http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/
This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff (NOTICE.txt,
and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file name.
Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the release to
this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to coding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Please vote on releasing these packages as Apache XAP 0.3.0.
The vote is open for the next 72 hours, and passes if at least three
+1 votes are cast. Then the Apache Incubator must vote to allow this
release. For more information on the voting process, please review
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes.
[ ] +1 Release the packages as Apache XAP 0.3.0 [ ] -1 Do not release
the packages because...
Thanks,
Here is my +1
Bob (Buffone)
RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Posted by Michael Turyn <MT...@nexaweb.com>.
+1
Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Posted by Scott Boyd <sc...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 2/8/07, Coach Wei <co...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> +1.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Buffone [mailto:rbuffone@nexaweb.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:50 PM
> > To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
> >
> > New distributions files have been uploaded to my apache's people
> > directory. The only changes are related to the NOTICE.txt and the
> > LICENSE.txt files to better comply with the MPL licensing issues.
> >
> > Please look it over and vote if you haven't; voting closes tomorrow.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bob (Buffone)
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:22 PM
> > To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
> >
> > On 2/8/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > > Cliff,
> > >
> > > This is what I am thinking of putting into the NOTICE.txt file to
> > > document the inclusion better.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------
> > > In accordance with provision 3.2. Availability of Source Code of the
> > MPL
> > > 1.1
> > > License, the source for the custom_rhino.jar is supplied in this
> > > distribution
> > > as a svn diff located at:
> > > [INSTALL_DIR]\source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
> > > Code Change Description: The code that has been modified supplies
> the
> > > compression functionality in the of the build system. This code was
> > > created
> > > as part of the Dojo Foundation. More information on this
> > functionality
> > > can
> > > be found at http://dojotoolkit.org/docs/compressor_system.html
> > > ----------------
> > >
> > > Would this be sufficient?
> >
> > Yes -- this looks good to me. The page you linked to is much more
> > helpful than the generic Mozilla source page that I saw in the Rhino
> > README. This one is specific to Rhino and refers to the specific
> > source the diff is based on (in this case the HEAD of the repository).
> >
> > Cliff
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bob Buffone [mailto:rbuffone@nexaweb.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:41 AM
> > > To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
> > >
> > > Cliff,
> > >
> > > MPL 1.1
> > > 3.2. Availability of Source Code.
> > >
> > > This is met by the fact as we supply the diff of the svn repository
> in
> > > the distribution, at
> > > source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
> > >
> > > 3.3. Description of Modifications.
> > >
> > > We will need to make this clearer, by putting it in the notice and
> > > describing the modification.
> > >
> > > Should this meet and concerns on the custom rhino code. If so, I
> will
> > > update the NOTICE.txt and LICENSE.txt to have reference to the MPL
> and
> > > upload a new version.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:40 AM
> > > To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
> > >
> > > On 2/8/07, James Margaris <jm...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > > > After spending about 3 hours today merging conflicts based on
> > changed
> > > copyrights, isn't "Copyright Apache blah blah blah" no longer the
> > right
> > > header? According to some docs after November 06 the headers are
> > > supposed to have been changed as the source files are actually not
> > > copyright apache, they are copyright the original contributor and
> used
> > > by Apache under a license grant.
> > >
> > > You are right that the document I have linked you to does say that
> the
> > > copyright statement doesn't go at the top of each source file.
> > > However, I was referring to the statement in the NOTICE file, which
> > > that same document also says should include the ASF copyright
> notice.
> > > Let me know if some part of it is not clear, and I'll fix it.
> > >
> > > > What actually *is* under apache copyright rather than simply
> granted
> > > via license?
> > >
> > > The collective work of all contributions as released based on the
> > > determination of the PMC is done on behalf of the ASF. Every
> > > individual author retains copyright ownership in their contribution,
> > > but the ASF owns the copyright in the collective work created by a
> > > release (or really any other PMC decision that affects the
> selection,
> > > coordination, and arrangement of the individual contributions).
> > >
> > > > The Rhino jar we use is actually a modified version patched by the
> > > Dojo guys. The patch file in in the Dojo repository.
> > >
> > > OK, but I assume you understand that doesn't reduce our requirement
> to
> > > make sure the conditions of the MPL (particularly 3.1-3.6) have been
> > > met before we can distribute Rhino (see first sentence of MPL 3.6).
> > >
> > > > AFAIK, nobody has edited any copyright notices to change them in
> any
> > > way.
> > >
> > > That's good.
> > >
> > > Cliff
> > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Wed 2/7/2007 6:42 PM
> > > > To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2/7/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > > > > Xapians,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have posted a release candidate at:
> > > > > http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/
> > > > >
> > > > > This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff
> > > (NOTICE.txt,
> > > > > and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file
> > > name.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the
> release
> > to
> > > > > this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to
> > coding.
> > > >
> > > > I took another good look through it. The LICENSE file looks good,
> > but
> > > > then I got concerned when I noticed that it appears to only
> include
> > > > the license for the Google and Dojo stuff, but not the other
> things
> > > > that are mentioned in the NOTICE file, e.g. Rhino, Jython. If
> > > > something like Rhino is part of the release, it needs to have its
> > > > license included in the LICENSE file.
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of Rhino, I found the custom jars, but couldn't see the
> > > > license anywhere in that folder either. The license should
> ideally
> > be
> > > > near the associated third-party work, in addition to being copied
> or
> > > > referenced/linked in the top-level LICENSE file. AFAICT, it's in
> > > > neither place, which would be . After seeing this, I didn't track
> > > > down the others listed in NOTICE that do not appear to be in
> > LICENSE,
> > > > but you'd want to check them too.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I was looking for the complete Rhino source and couldn't
> find
> > > > that. I saw the README.txt that states, "The source code for
> Rhino
> > is
> > > > available at:
> > > http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code",
> > > > but it wasn't obvious from there where to find the Rhino source
> for
> > > > the version used in XAP. If you don't include the source, you
> must
> > > > have a link to exactly where the source is (this is an MPL
> > > > requirement).
> > > >
> > > > BTW, I have no idea why Google and Dojo get this wrong, but
> there's
> > no
> > > > comma after the year or year range in a copyright notice. There's
> > > > also no need for "Copyright" followed by "(c)" -- just one or the
> > > > other. I definitely wouldn't fix any third-party copyright
> notices;
> > > > just copy it from what they used, as you did; however, the Apache
> > one
> > > > should be written properly, as described in the link I gave you
> > > > ("Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation"). I wouldn't
> > have
> > > > bothered stopping a release vote if this was the only problem, but
> > if
> > > > you're fixing the other things, you might want to make sure the
> > Apache
> > > > one is clean. You can also see the actual Copyright Act's
> > requirement
> > > > here:
> > >
> >
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000401----0
> > > 00-.html#b.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, did Mozilla, Jython, and Python all make the same mistake? I
> > > > didn't check all of them, but I just want to make sure there was
> no
> > > > editing done of their copyright notices.
> > > >
> > > > Cliff
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Posted by Coach Wei <co...@nexaweb.com>.
+1.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Buffone [mailto:rbuffone@nexaweb.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:50 PM
> To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
>
> New distributions files have been uploaded to my apache's people
> directory. The only changes are related to the NOTICE.txt and the
> LICENSE.txt files to better comply with the MPL licensing issues.
>
> Please look it over and vote if you haven't; voting closes tomorrow.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob (Buffone)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:22 PM
> To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
>
> On 2/8/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > Cliff,
> >
> > This is what I am thinking of putting into the NOTICE.txt file to
> > document the inclusion better.
> >
> > --------------------------------
> > In accordance with provision 3.2. Availability of Source Code of the
> MPL
> > 1.1
> > License, the source for the custom_rhino.jar is supplied in this
> > distribution
> > as a svn diff located at:
> > [INSTALL_DIR]\source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
> > Code Change Description: The code that has been modified supplies
the
> > compression functionality in the of the build system. This code was
> > created
> > as part of the Dojo Foundation. More information on this
> functionality
> > can
> > be found at http://dojotoolkit.org/docs/compressor_system.html
> > ----------------
> >
> > Would this be sufficient?
>
> Yes -- this looks good to me. The page you linked to is much more
> helpful than the generic Mozilla source page that I saw in the Rhino
> README. This one is specific to Rhino and refers to the specific
> source the diff is based on (in this case the HEAD of the repository).
>
> Cliff
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Buffone [mailto:rbuffone@nexaweb.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:41 AM
> > To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
> >
> > Cliff,
> >
> > MPL 1.1
> > 3.2. Availability of Source Code.
> >
> > This is met by the fact as we supply the diff of the svn repository
in
> > the distribution, at
> > source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
> >
> > 3.3. Description of Modifications.
> >
> > We will need to make this clearer, by putting it in the notice and
> > describing the modification.
> >
> > Should this meet and concerns on the custom rhino code. If so, I
will
> > update the NOTICE.txt and LICENSE.txt to have reference to the MPL
and
> > upload a new version.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:40 AM
> > To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
> >
> > On 2/8/07, James Margaris <jm...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > > After spending about 3 hours today merging conflicts based on
> changed
> > copyrights, isn't "Copyright Apache blah blah blah" no longer the
> right
> > header? According to some docs after November 06 the headers are
> > supposed to have been changed as the source files are actually not
> > copyright apache, they are copyright the original contributor and
used
> > by Apache under a license grant.
> >
> > You are right that the document I have linked you to does say that
the
> > copyright statement doesn't go at the top of each source file.
> > However, I was referring to the statement in the NOTICE file, which
> > that same document also says should include the ASF copyright
notice.
> > Let me know if some part of it is not clear, and I'll fix it.
> >
> > > What actually *is* under apache copyright rather than simply
granted
> > via license?
> >
> > The collective work of all contributions as released based on the
> > determination of the PMC is done on behalf of the ASF. Every
> > individual author retains copyright ownership in their contribution,
> > but the ASF owns the copyright in the collective work created by a
> > release (or really any other PMC decision that affects the
selection,
> > coordination, and arrangement of the individual contributions).
> >
> > > The Rhino jar we use is actually a modified version patched by the
> > Dojo guys. The patch file in in the Dojo repository.
> >
> > OK, but I assume you understand that doesn't reduce our requirement
to
> > make sure the conditions of the MPL (particularly 3.1-3.6) have been
> > met before we can distribute Rhino (see first sentence of MPL 3.6).
> >
> > > AFAIK, nobody has edited any copyright notices to change them in
any
> > way.
> >
> > That's good.
> >
> > Cliff
> >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wed 2/7/2007 6:42 PM
> > > To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/7/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > > > Xapians,
> > > >
> > > > I have posted a release candidate at:
> > > > http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/
> > > >
> > > > This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff
> > (NOTICE.txt,
> > > > and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file
> > name.
> > > >
> > > > Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the
release
> to
> > > > this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to
> coding.
> > >
> > > I took another good look through it. The LICENSE file looks good,
> but
> > > then I got concerned when I noticed that it appears to only
include
> > > the license for the Google and Dojo stuff, but not the other
things
> > > that are mentioned in the NOTICE file, e.g. Rhino, Jython. If
> > > something like Rhino is part of the release, it needs to have its
> > > license included in the LICENSE file.
> > >
> > > Speaking of Rhino, I found the custom jars, but couldn't see the
> > > license anywhere in that folder either. The license should
ideally
> be
> > > near the associated third-party work, in addition to being copied
or
> > > referenced/linked in the top-level LICENSE file. AFAICT, it's in
> > > neither place, which would be . After seeing this, I didn't track
> > > down the others listed in NOTICE that do not appear to be in
> LICENSE,
> > > but you'd want to check them too.
> > >
> > > Also, I was looking for the complete Rhino source and couldn't
find
> > > that. I saw the README.txt that states, "The source code for
Rhino
> is
> > > available at:
> > http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code",
> > > but it wasn't obvious from there where to find the Rhino source
for
> > > the version used in XAP. If you don't include the source, you
must
> > > have a link to exactly where the source is (this is an MPL
> > > requirement).
> > >
> > > BTW, I have no idea why Google and Dojo get this wrong, but
there's
> no
> > > comma after the year or year range in a copyright notice. There's
> > > also no need for "Copyright" followed by "(c)" -- just one or the
> > > other. I definitely wouldn't fix any third-party copyright
notices;
> > > just copy it from what they used, as you did; however, the Apache
> one
> > > should be written properly, as described in the link I gave you
> > > ("Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation"). I wouldn't
> have
> > > bothered stopping a release vote if this was the only problem, but
> if
> > > you're fixing the other things, you might want to make sure the
> Apache
> > > one is clean. You can also see the actual Copyright Act's
> requirement
> > > here:
> >
>
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000401----0
> > 00-.html#b.
> > >
> > > BTW, did Mozilla, Jython, and Python all make the same mistake? I
> > > didn't check all of them, but I just want to make sure there was
no
> > > editing done of their copyright notices.
> > >
> > > Cliff
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Posted by Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com>.
New distributions files have been uploaded to my apache's people
directory. The only changes are related to the NOTICE.txt and the
LICENSE.txt files to better comply with the MPL licensing issues.
Please look it over and vote if you haven't; voting closes tomorrow.
Thanks,
Bob (Buffone)
-----Original Message-----
From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:22 PM
To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
On 2/8/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> Cliff,
>
> This is what I am thinking of putting into the NOTICE.txt file to
> document the inclusion better.
>
> --------------------------------
> In accordance with provision 3.2. Availability of Source Code of the
MPL
> 1.1
> License, the source for the custom_rhino.jar is supplied in this
> distribution
> as a svn diff located at:
> [INSTALL_DIR]\source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
> Code Change Description: The code that has been modified supplies the
> compression functionality in the of the build system. This code was
> created
> as part of the Dojo Foundation. More information on this
functionality
> can
> be found at http://dojotoolkit.org/docs/compressor_system.html
> ----------------
>
> Would this be sufficient?
Yes -- this looks good to me. The page you linked to is much more
helpful than the generic Mozilla source page that I saw in the Rhino
README. This one is specific to Rhino and refers to the specific
source the diff is based on (in this case the HEAD of the repository).
Cliff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Buffone [mailto:rbuffone@nexaweb.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:41 AM
> To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
>
> Cliff,
>
> MPL 1.1
> 3.2. Availability of Source Code.
>
> This is met by the fact as we supply the diff of the svn repository in
> the distribution, at
> source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
>
> 3.3. Description of Modifications.
>
> We will need to make this clearer, by putting it in the notice and
> describing the modification.
>
> Should this meet and concerns on the custom rhino code. If so, I will
> update the NOTICE.txt and LICENSE.txt to have reference to the MPL and
> upload a new version.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:40 AM
> To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
>
> On 2/8/07, James Margaris <jm...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > After spending about 3 hours today merging conflicts based on
changed
> copyrights, isn't "Copyright Apache blah blah blah" no longer the
right
> header? According to some docs after November 06 the headers are
> supposed to have been changed as the source files are actually not
> copyright apache, they are copyright the original contributor and used
> by Apache under a license grant.
>
> You are right that the document I have linked you to does say that the
> copyright statement doesn't go at the top of each source file.
> However, I was referring to the statement in the NOTICE file, which
> that same document also says should include the ASF copyright notice.
> Let me know if some part of it is not clear, and I'll fix it.
>
> > What actually *is* under apache copyright rather than simply granted
> via license?
>
> The collective work of all contributions as released based on the
> determination of the PMC is done on behalf of the ASF. Every
> individual author retains copyright ownership in their contribution,
> but the ASF owns the copyright in the collective work created by a
> release (or really any other PMC decision that affects the selection,
> coordination, and arrangement of the individual contributions).
>
> > The Rhino jar we use is actually a modified version patched by the
> Dojo guys. The patch file in in the Dojo repository.
>
> OK, but I assume you understand that doesn't reduce our requirement to
> make sure the conditions of the MPL (particularly 3.1-3.6) have been
> met before we can distribute Rhino (see first sentence of MPL 3.6).
>
> > AFAIK, nobody has edited any copyright notices to change them in any
> way.
>
> That's good.
>
> Cliff
>
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wed 2/7/2007 6:42 PM
> > To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/7/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > > Xapians,
> > >
> > > I have posted a release candidate at:
> > > http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/
> > >
> > > This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff
> (NOTICE.txt,
> > > and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file
> name.
> > >
> > > Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the release
to
> > > this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to
coding.
> >
> > I took another good look through it. The LICENSE file looks good,
but
> > then I got concerned when I noticed that it appears to only include
> > the license for the Google and Dojo stuff, but not the other things
> > that are mentioned in the NOTICE file, e.g. Rhino, Jython. If
> > something like Rhino is part of the release, it needs to have its
> > license included in the LICENSE file.
> >
> > Speaking of Rhino, I found the custom jars, but couldn't see the
> > license anywhere in that folder either. The license should ideally
be
> > near the associated third-party work, in addition to being copied or
> > referenced/linked in the top-level LICENSE file. AFAICT, it's in
> > neither place, which would be . After seeing this, I didn't track
> > down the others listed in NOTICE that do not appear to be in
LICENSE,
> > but you'd want to check them too.
> >
> > Also, I was looking for the complete Rhino source and couldn't find
> > that. I saw the README.txt that states, "The source code for Rhino
is
> > available at:
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code",
> > but it wasn't obvious from there where to find the Rhino source for
> > the version used in XAP. If you don't include the source, you must
> > have a link to exactly where the source is (this is an MPL
> > requirement).
> >
> > BTW, I have no idea why Google and Dojo get this wrong, but there's
no
> > comma after the year or year range in a copyright notice. There's
> > also no need for "Copyright" followed by "(c)" -- just one or the
> > other. I definitely wouldn't fix any third-party copyright notices;
> > just copy it from what they used, as you did; however, the Apache
one
> > should be written properly, as described in the link I gave you
> > ("Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation"). I wouldn't
have
> > bothered stopping a release vote if this was the only problem, but
if
> > you're fixing the other things, you might want to make sure the
Apache
> > one is clean. You can also see the actual Copyright Act's
requirement
> > here:
>
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000401----0
> 00-.html#b.
> >
> > BTW, did Mozilla, Jython, and Python all make the same mistake? I
> > didn't check all of them, but I just want to make sure there was no
> > editing done of their copyright notices.
> >
> > Cliff
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 2/8/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> Cliff,
>
> This is what I am thinking of putting into the NOTICE.txt file to
> document the inclusion better.
>
> --------------------------------
> In accordance with provision 3.2. Availability of Source Code of the MPL
> 1.1
> License, the source for the custom_rhino.jar is supplied in this
> distribution
> as a svn diff located at:
> [INSTALL_DIR]\source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
> Code Change Description: The code that has been modified supplies the
> compression functionality in the of the build system. This code was
> created
> as part of the Dojo Foundation. More information on this functionality
> can
> be found at http://dojotoolkit.org/docs/compressor_system.html
> ----------------
>
> Would this be sufficient?
Yes -- this looks good to me. The page you linked to is much more
helpful than the generic Mozilla source page that I saw in the Rhino
README. This one is specific to Rhino and refers to the specific
source the diff is based on (in this case the HEAD of the repository).
Cliff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Buffone [mailto:rbuffone@nexaweb.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:41 AM
> To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
>
> Cliff,
>
> MPL 1.1
> 3.2. Availability of Source Code.
>
> This is met by the fact as we supply the diff of the svn repository in
> the distribution, at
> source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
>
> 3.3. Description of Modifications.
>
> We will need to make this clearer, by putting it in the notice and
> describing the modification.
>
> Should this meet and concerns on the custom rhino code. If so, I will
> update the NOTICE.txt and LICENSE.txt to have reference to the MPL and
> upload a new version.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:40 AM
> To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
>
> On 2/8/07, James Margaris <jm...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > After spending about 3 hours today merging conflicts based on changed
> copyrights, isn't "Copyright Apache blah blah blah" no longer the right
> header? According to some docs after November 06 the headers are
> supposed to have been changed as the source files are actually not
> copyright apache, they are copyright the original contributor and used
> by Apache under a license grant.
>
> You are right that the document I have linked you to does say that the
> copyright statement doesn't go at the top of each source file.
> However, I was referring to the statement in the NOTICE file, which
> that same document also says should include the ASF copyright notice.
> Let me know if some part of it is not clear, and I'll fix it.
>
> > What actually *is* under apache copyright rather than simply granted
> via license?
>
> The collective work of all contributions as released based on the
> determination of the PMC is done on behalf of the ASF. Every
> individual author retains copyright ownership in their contribution,
> but the ASF owns the copyright in the collective work created by a
> release (or really any other PMC decision that affects the selection,
> coordination, and arrangement of the individual contributions).
>
> > The Rhino jar we use is actually a modified version patched by the
> Dojo guys. The patch file in in the Dojo repository.
>
> OK, but I assume you understand that doesn't reduce our requirement to
> make sure the conditions of the MPL (particularly 3.1-3.6) have been
> met before we can distribute Rhino (see first sentence of MPL 3.6).
>
> > AFAIK, nobody has edited any copyright notices to change them in any
> way.
>
> That's good.
>
> Cliff
>
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wed 2/7/2007 6:42 PM
> > To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/7/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > > Xapians,
> > >
> > > I have posted a release candidate at:
> > > http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/
> > >
> > > This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff
> (NOTICE.txt,
> > > and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file
> name.
> > >
> > > Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the release to
> > > this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to coding.
> >
> > I took another good look through it. The LICENSE file looks good, but
> > then I got concerned when I noticed that it appears to only include
> > the license for the Google and Dojo stuff, but not the other things
> > that are mentioned in the NOTICE file, e.g. Rhino, Jython. If
> > something like Rhino is part of the release, it needs to have its
> > license included in the LICENSE file.
> >
> > Speaking of Rhino, I found the custom jars, but couldn't see the
> > license anywhere in that folder either. The license should ideally be
> > near the associated third-party work, in addition to being copied or
> > referenced/linked in the top-level LICENSE file. AFAICT, it's in
> > neither place, which would be . After seeing this, I didn't track
> > down the others listed in NOTICE that do not appear to be in LICENSE,
> > but you'd want to check them too.
> >
> > Also, I was looking for the complete Rhino source and couldn't find
> > that. I saw the README.txt that states, "The source code for Rhino is
> > available at:
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code",
> > but it wasn't obvious from there where to find the Rhino source for
> > the version used in XAP. If you don't include the source, you must
> > have a link to exactly where the source is (this is an MPL
> > requirement).
> >
> > BTW, I have no idea why Google and Dojo get this wrong, but there's no
> > comma after the year or year range in a copyright notice. There's
> > also no need for "Copyright" followed by "(c)" -- just one or the
> > other. I definitely wouldn't fix any third-party copyright notices;
> > just copy it from what they used, as you did; however, the Apache one
> > should be written properly, as described in the link I gave you
> > ("Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation"). I wouldn't have
> > bothered stopping a release vote if this was the only problem, but if
> > you're fixing the other things, you might want to make sure the Apache
> > one is clean. You can also see the actual Copyright Act's requirement
> > here:
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000401----0
> 00-.html#b.
> >
> > BTW, did Mozilla, Jython, and Python all make the same mistake? I
> > didn't check all of them, but I just want to make sure there was no
> > editing done of their copyright notices.
> >
> > Cliff
> >
> >
> >
>
RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Posted by Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com>.
Cliff,
This is what I am thinking of putting into the NOTICE.txt file to
document the inclusion better.
--------------------------------
In accordance with provision 3.2. Availability of Source Code of the MPL
1.1
License, the source for the custom_rhino.jar is supplied in this
distribution
as a svn diff located at:
[INSTALL_DIR]\source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
Code Change Description: The code that has been modified supplies the
compression functionality in the of the build system. This code was
created
as part of the Dojo Foundation. More information on this functionality
can
be found at http://dojotoolkit.org/docs/compressor_system.html
----------------
Would this be sufficient?
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Buffone [mailto:rbuffone@nexaweb.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:41 AM
To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Cliff,
MPL 1.1
3.2. Availability of Source Code.
This is met by the fact as we supply the diff of the svn repository in
the distribution, at
source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
3.3. Description of Modifications.
We will need to make this clearer, by putting it in the notice and
describing the modification.
Should this meet and concerns on the custom rhino code. If so, I will
update the NOTICE.txt and LICENSE.txt to have reference to the MPL and
upload a new version.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:40 AM
To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
On 2/8/07, James Margaris <jm...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> After spending about 3 hours today merging conflicts based on changed
copyrights, isn't "Copyright Apache blah blah blah" no longer the right
header? According to some docs after November 06 the headers are
supposed to have been changed as the source files are actually not
copyright apache, they are copyright the original contributor and used
by Apache under a license grant.
You are right that the document I have linked you to does say that the
copyright statement doesn't go at the top of each source file.
However, I was referring to the statement in the NOTICE file, which
that same document also says should include the ASF copyright notice.
Let me know if some part of it is not clear, and I'll fix it.
> What actually *is* under apache copyright rather than simply granted
via license?
The collective work of all contributions as released based on the
determination of the PMC is done on behalf of the ASF. Every
individual author retains copyright ownership in their contribution,
but the ASF owns the copyright in the collective work created by a
release (or really any other PMC decision that affects the selection,
coordination, and arrangement of the individual contributions).
> The Rhino jar we use is actually a modified version patched by the
Dojo guys. The patch file in in the Dojo repository.
OK, but I assume you understand that doesn't reduce our requirement to
make sure the conditions of the MPL (particularly 3.1-3.6) have been
met before we can distribute Rhino (see first sentence of MPL 3.6).
> AFAIK, nobody has edited any copyright notices to change them in any
way.
That's good.
Cliff
> ________________________________
>
> From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wed 2/7/2007 6:42 PM
> To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
>
>
>
> On 2/7/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > Xapians,
> >
> > I have posted a release candidate at:
> > http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/
> >
> > This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff
(NOTICE.txt,
> > and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file
name.
> >
> > Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the release to
> > this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to coding.
>
> I took another good look through it. The LICENSE file looks good, but
> then I got concerned when I noticed that it appears to only include
> the license for the Google and Dojo stuff, but not the other things
> that are mentioned in the NOTICE file, e.g. Rhino, Jython. If
> something like Rhino is part of the release, it needs to have its
> license included in the LICENSE file.
>
> Speaking of Rhino, I found the custom jars, but couldn't see the
> license anywhere in that folder either. The license should ideally be
> near the associated third-party work, in addition to being copied or
> referenced/linked in the top-level LICENSE file. AFAICT, it's in
> neither place, which would be . After seeing this, I didn't track
> down the others listed in NOTICE that do not appear to be in LICENSE,
> but you'd want to check them too.
>
> Also, I was looking for the complete Rhino source and couldn't find
> that. I saw the README.txt that states, "The source code for Rhino is
> available at:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code",
> but it wasn't obvious from there where to find the Rhino source for
> the version used in XAP. If you don't include the source, you must
> have a link to exactly where the source is (this is an MPL
> requirement).
>
> BTW, I have no idea why Google and Dojo get this wrong, but there's no
> comma after the year or year range in a copyright notice. There's
> also no need for "Copyright" followed by "(c)" -- just one or the
> other. I definitely wouldn't fix any third-party copyright notices;
> just copy it from what they used, as you did; however, the Apache one
> should be written properly, as described in the link I gave you
> ("Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation"). I wouldn't have
> bothered stopping a release vote if this was the only problem, but if
> you're fixing the other things, you might want to make sure the Apache
> one is clean. You can also see the actual Copyright Act's requirement
> here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000401----0
00-.html#b.
>
> BTW, did Mozilla, Jython, and Python all make the same mistake? I
> didn't check all of them, but I just want to make sure there was no
> editing done of their copyright notices.
>
> Cliff
>
>
>
RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Posted by Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com>.
Cliff,
MPL 1.1
3.2. Availability of Source Code.
This is met by the fact as we supply the diff of the svn repository in
the distribution, at
source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
3.3. Description of Modifications.
We will need to make this clearer, by putting it in the notice and
describing the modification.
Should this meet and concerns on the custom rhino code. If so, I will
update the NOTICE.txt and LICENSE.txt to have reference to the MPL and
upload a new version.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:40 AM
To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
On 2/8/07, James Margaris <jm...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> After spending about 3 hours today merging conflicts based on changed
copyrights, isn't "Copyright Apache blah blah blah" no longer the right
header? According to some docs after November 06 the headers are
supposed to have been changed as the source files are actually not
copyright apache, they are copyright the original contributor and used
by Apache under a license grant.
You are right that the document I have linked you to does say that the
copyright statement doesn't go at the top of each source file.
However, I was referring to the statement in the NOTICE file, which
that same document also says should include the ASF copyright notice.
Let me know if some part of it is not clear, and I'll fix it.
> What actually *is* under apache copyright rather than simply granted
via license?
The collective work of all contributions as released based on the
determination of the PMC is done on behalf of the ASF. Every
individual author retains copyright ownership in their contribution,
but the ASF owns the copyright in the collective work created by a
release (or really any other PMC decision that affects the selection,
coordination, and arrangement of the individual contributions).
> The Rhino jar we use is actually a modified version patched by the
Dojo guys. The patch file in in the Dojo repository.
OK, but I assume you understand that doesn't reduce our requirement to
make sure the conditions of the MPL (particularly 3.1-3.6) have been
met before we can distribute Rhino (see first sentence of MPL 3.6).
> AFAIK, nobody has edited any copyright notices to change them in any
way.
That's good.
Cliff
> ________________________________
>
> From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wed 2/7/2007 6:42 PM
> To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
>
>
>
> On 2/7/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > Xapians,
> >
> > I have posted a release candidate at:
> > http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/
> >
> > This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff
(NOTICE.txt,
> > and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file
name.
> >
> > Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the release to
> > this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to coding.
>
> I took another good look through it. The LICENSE file looks good, but
> then I got concerned when I noticed that it appears to only include
> the license for the Google and Dojo stuff, but not the other things
> that are mentioned in the NOTICE file, e.g. Rhino, Jython. If
> something like Rhino is part of the release, it needs to have its
> license included in the LICENSE file.
>
> Speaking of Rhino, I found the custom jars, but couldn't see the
> license anywhere in that folder either. The license should ideally be
> near the associated third-party work, in addition to being copied or
> referenced/linked in the top-level LICENSE file. AFAICT, it's in
> neither place, which would be . After seeing this, I didn't track
> down the others listed in NOTICE that do not appear to be in LICENSE,
> but you'd want to check them too.
>
> Also, I was looking for the complete Rhino source and couldn't find
> that. I saw the README.txt that states, "The source code for Rhino is
> available at:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code",
> but it wasn't obvious from there where to find the Rhino source for
> the version used in XAP. If you don't include the source, you must
> have a link to exactly where the source is (this is an MPL
> requirement).
>
> BTW, I have no idea why Google and Dojo get this wrong, but there's no
> comma after the year or year range in a copyright notice. There's
> also no need for "Copyright" followed by "(c)" -- just one or the
> other. I definitely wouldn't fix any third-party copyright notices;
> just copy it from what they used, as you did; however, the Apache one
> should be written properly, as described in the link I gave you
> ("Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation"). I wouldn't have
> bothered stopping a release vote if this was the only problem, but if
> you're fixing the other things, you might want to make sure the Apache
> one is clean. You can also see the actual Copyright Act's requirement
> here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000401----0
00-.html#b.
>
> BTW, did Mozilla, Jython, and Python all make the same mistake? I
> didn't check all of them, but I just want to make sure there was no
> editing done of their copyright notices.
>
> Cliff
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 2/8/07, James Margaris <jm...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> After spending about 3 hours today merging conflicts based on changed copyrights, isn't "Copyright Apache blah blah blah" no longer the right header? According to some docs after November 06 the headers are supposed to have been changed as the source files are actually not copyright apache, they are copyright the original contributor and used by Apache under a license grant.
You are right that the document I have linked you to does say that the
copyright statement doesn't go at the top of each source file.
However, I was referring to the statement in the NOTICE file, which
that same document also says should include the ASF copyright notice.
Let me know if some part of it is not clear, and I'll fix it.
> What actually *is* under apache copyright rather than simply granted via license?
The collective work of all contributions as released based on the
determination of the PMC is done on behalf of the ASF. Every
individual author retains copyright ownership in their contribution,
but the ASF owns the copyright in the collective work created by a
release (or really any other PMC decision that affects the selection,
coordination, and arrangement of the individual contributions).
> The Rhino jar we use is actually a modified version patched by the Dojo guys. The patch file in in the Dojo repository.
OK, but I assume you understand that doesn't reduce our requirement to
make sure the conditions of the MPL (particularly 3.1-3.6) have been
met before we can distribute Rhino (see first sentence of MPL 3.6).
> AFAIK, nobody has edited any copyright notices to change them in any way.
That's good.
Cliff
> ________________________________
>
> From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wed 2/7/2007 6:42 PM
> To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
>
>
>
> On 2/7/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> > Xapians,
> >
> > I have posted a release candidate at:
> > http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/
> >
> > This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff (NOTICE.txt,
> > and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file name.
> >
> > Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the release to
> > this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to coding.
>
> I took another good look through it. The LICENSE file looks good, but
> then I got concerned when I noticed that it appears to only include
> the license for the Google and Dojo stuff, but not the other things
> that are mentioned in the NOTICE file, e.g. Rhino, Jython. If
> something like Rhino is part of the release, it needs to have its
> license included in the LICENSE file.
>
> Speaking of Rhino, I found the custom jars, but couldn't see the
> license anywhere in that folder either. The license should ideally be
> near the associated third-party work, in addition to being copied or
> referenced/linked in the top-level LICENSE file. AFAICT, it's in
> neither place, which would be . After seeing this, I didn't track
> down the others listed in NOTICE that do not appear to be in LICENSE,
> but you'd want to check them too.
>
> Also, I was looking for the complete Rhino source and couldn't find
> that. I saw the README.txt that states, "The source code for Rhino is
> available at: http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code",
> but it wasn't obvious from there where to find the Rhino source for
> the version used in XAP. If you don't include the source, you must
> have a link to exactly where the source is (this is an MPL
> requirement).
>
> BTW, I have no idea why Google and Dojo get this wrong, but there's no
> comma after the year or year range in a copyright notice. There's
> also no need for "Copyright" followed by "(c)" -- just one or the
> other. I definitely wouldn't fix any third-party copyright notices;
> just copy it from what they used, as you did; however, the Apache one
> should be written properly, as described in the link I gave you
> ("Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation"). I wouldn't have
> bothered stopping a release vote if this was the only problem, but if
> you're fixing the other things, you might want to make sure the Apache
> one is clean. You can also see the actual Copyright Act's requirement
> here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000401----000-.html#b.
>
> BTW, did Mozilla, Jython, and Python all make the same mistake? I
> didn't check all of them, but I just want to make sure there was no
> editing done of their copyright notices.
>
> Cliff
>
>
>
RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Posted by James Margaris <jm...@nexaweb.com>.
After spending about 3 hours today merging conflicts based on changed copyrights, isn't "Copyright Apache blah blah blah" no longer the right header? According to some docs after November 06 the headers are supposed to have been changed as the source files are actually not copyright apache, they are copyright the original contributor and used by Apache under a license grant.
What actually *is* under apache copyright rather than simply granted via license?
The Rhino jar we use is actually a modified version patched by the Dojo guys. The patch file in in the Dojo repository.
AFAIK, nobody has edited any copyright notices to change them in any way.
________________________________
From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
Sent: Wed 2/7/2007 6:42 PM
To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
On 2/7/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> Xapians,
>
> I have posted a release candidate at:
> http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/
>
> This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff (NOTICE.txt,
> and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file name.
>
> Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the release to
> this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to coding.
I took another good look through it. The LICENSE file looks good, but
then I got concerned when I noticed that it appears to only include
the license for the Google and Dojo stuff, but not the other things
that are mentioned in the NOTICE file, e.g. Rhino, Jython. If
something like Rhino is part of the release, it needs to have its
license included in the LICENSE file.
Speaking of Rhino, I found the custom jars, but couldn't see the
license anywhere in that folder either. The license should ideally be
near the associated third-party work, in addition to being copied or
referenced/linked in the top-level LICENSE file. AFAICT, it's in
neither place, which would be . After seeing this, I didn't track
down the others listed in NOTICE that do not appear to be in LICENSE,
but you'd want to check them too.
Also, I was looking for the complete Rhino source and couldn't find
that. I saw the README.txt that states, "The source code for Rhino is
available at: http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code",
but it wasn't obvious from there where to find the Rhino source for
the version used in XAP. If you don't include the source, you must
have a link to exactly where the source is (this is an MPL
requirement).
BTW, I have no idea why Google and Dojo get this wrong, but there's no
comma after the year or year range in a copyright notice. There's
also no need for "Copyright" followed by "(c)" -- just one or the
other. I definitely wouldn't fix any third-party copyright notices;
just copy it from what they used, as you did; however, the Apache one
should be written properly, as described in the link I gave you
("Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation"). I wouldn't have
bothered stopping a release vote if this was the only problem, but if
you're fixing the other things, you might want to make sure the Apache
one is clean. You can also see the actual Copyright Act's requirement
here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000401----000-.html#b.
BTW, did Mozilla, Jython, and Python all make the same mistake? I
didn't check all of them, but I just want to make sure there was no
editing done of their copyright notices.
Cliff
Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 2/7/07, Bob Buffone <rb...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
> Xapians,
>
> I have posted a release candidate at:
> http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/
>
> This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff (NOTICE.txt,
> and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file name.
>
> Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the release to
> this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to coding.
I took another good look through it. The LICENSE file looks good, but
then I got concerned when I noticed that it appears to only include
the license for the Google and Dojo stuff, but not the other things
that are mentioned in the NOTICE file, e.g. Rhino, Jython. If
something like Rhino is part of the release, it needs to have its
license included in the LICENSE file.
Speaking of Rhino, I found the custom jars, but couldn't see the
license anywhere in that folder either. The license should ideally be
near the associated third-party work, in addition to being copied or
referenced/linked in the top-level LICENSE file. AFAICT, it's in
neither place, which would be . After seeing this, I didn't track
down the others listed in NOTICE that do not appear to be in LICENSE,
but you'd want to check them too.
Also, I was looking for the complete Rhino source and couldn't find
that. I saw the README.txt that states, "The source code for Rhino is
available at: http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code",
but it wasn't obvious from there where to find the Rhino source for
the version used in XAP. If you don't include the source, you must
have a link to exactly where the source is (this is an MPL
requirement).
BTW, I have no idea why Google and Dojo get this wrong, but there's no
comma after the year or year range in a copyright notice. There's
also no need for "Copyright" followed by "(c)" -- just one or the
other. I definitely wouldn't fix any third-party copyright notices;
just copy it from what they used, as you did; however, the Apache one
should be written properly, as described in the link I gave you
("Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation"). I wouldn't have
bothered stopping a release vote if this was the only problem, but if
you're fixing the other things, you might want to make sure the Apache
one is clean. You can also see the actual Copyright Act's requirement
here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000401----000-.html#b.
BTW, did Mozilla, Jython, and Python all make the same mistake? I
didn't check all of them, but I just want to make sure there was no
editing done of their copyright notices.
Cliff
RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Posted by Trevor Oldak <TO...@nexaweb.com>.
+1
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Buffone [mailto:rbuffone@nexaweb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:03 PM
To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Xapians,
I have posted a release candidate at:
http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/
This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff (NOTICE.txt,
and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file name.
Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the release to
this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to coding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Please vote on releasing these packages as Apache XAP 0.3.0.
The vote is open for the next 72 hours, and passes if at least three
+1 votes are cast. Then the Apache Incubator must vote to allow this
release. For more information on the voting process, please review
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes.
[ ] +1 Release the packages as Apache XAP 0.3.0 [ ] -1 Do not release
the packages because...
Thanks,
Here is my +1
Bob (Buffone)