You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com> on 2007/04/25 20:41:02 UTC
RC0 for uimacpp distribution
There is an initial release candidate for the UIMA C++ framework at
http://people.apache.org/~eae/uimacpp-distributions/2.1.0/RC0/
Thilo, can you please look through the distributions and let me know
what issues you see with the overall package?
There are source and binary distributions for Unix and Windows if
anyone wants to play.
Thanks,
Eddie
Re: RC0 for uimacpp distribution
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
Hi Eddie,
Eddie Epstein wrote:
> Thilo,
>
> Thanks for looking this over. Please see some questions below
>
>> * LICENSE file needs the variables filled in.
> Is this related to the comment about appending other licenses to this file?
> If not I am at a loss.
Sorry, please ignore that. I was confused.
>
>> * The APR headers still use the old 1.1 Apache license. Is this the
>> latest version of APR? I'm not suggesting you change the license, to
>> the contrary. Just wondering if there is a later version available
>> that's already under the 2.0 license.
> Good point. Will move to a more recent version of APR.
>
>> * For the release voting, we'll need to say how the documentation is
>> automatically generated with doxygen (because there are no license
>> headers).
> The doxygen generated html identifies itself as being generated by doxygen
> at the bottom of every page. I looked for information on the doxygen
> site about other
> requirements to acknowledge doxygen, but could not find any. Can you
> say more here?
What I meant was, when we start the [VOTE] thread, it would make sense
to point this out to people (so they know that these files don't need
any Apache license headers). Alternatively, we could create an
annotated RAT report like I did for the Java version where we explain that.
I won't have time to look at the source distribution this week, I'm
afraid. Hopefully next week. Sorry about that.
--Thilo
>
>> * uimacpp/include/uima/msg.h and uimacpp/include/uima/msgstrtab.h have
>> no license headers.
> Fixed.
>
>> * The licenses do not go into separate subdirectories. Instead, all
>> licenses are appended to the LICENSE file. In addition, in the NOTICES
>> file, you spell out what software you include that's not Apache
>> licensed, and under which license (which is then in the LICENSE file).
>> You'll need to do that for the ICU, and I guess Xeces and APR, because
>> they are 1.x licensed. We should ask on incubator-general about the ICU
>> license, but I assume it's ok because Xerces is also using it.
> The xerces release here is already 2.0 licensed, and APR will be too.
> Will ask the incubator-general about ICU.
>
>> That's it for today, I'll take another look tomorrow, and hopefully also
>> at the source distribution.
> Thanks again,
> Eddie
Re: RC0 for uimacpp distribution
Posted by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com>.
Thilo,
Thanks for looking this over. Please see some questions below
> * LICENSE file needs the variables filled in.
Is this related to the comment about appending other licenses to this file?
If not I am at a loss.
> * The APR headers still use the old 1.1 Apache license. Is this the
> latest version of APR? I'm not suggesting you change the license, to
> the contrary. Just wondering if there is a later version available
> that's already under the 2.0 license.
Good point. Will move to a more recent version of APR.
> * For the release voting, we'll need to say how the documentation is
> automatically generated with doxygen (because there are no license
> headers).
The doxygen generated html identifies itself as being generated by doxygen
at the bottom of every page. I looked for information on the doxygen
site about other
requirements to acknowledge doxygen, but could not find any. Can you
say more here?
> * uimacpp/include/uima/msg.h and uimacpp/include/uima/msgstrtab.h have
> no license headers.
Fixed.
> * The licenses do not go into separate subdirectories. Instead, all
> licenses are appended to the LICENSE file. In addition, in the NOTICES
> file, you spell out what software you include that's not Apache
> licensed, and under which license (which is then in the LICENSE file).
> You'll need to do that for the ICU, and I guess Xeces and APR, because
> they are 1.x licensed. We should ask on incubator-general about the ICU
> license, but I assume it's ok because Xerces is also using it.
The xerces release here is already 2.0 licensed, and APR will be too.
Will ask the incubator-general about ICU.
> That's it for today, I'll take another look tomorrow, and hopefully also
> at the source distribution.
Thanks again,
Eddie
Re: RC0 for uimacpp distribution
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
Eddie Epstein wrote:
> There is an initial release candidate for the UIMA C++ framework at
> http://people.apache.org/~eae/uimacpp-distributions/2.1.0/RC0/
>
> Thilo, can you please look through the distributions and let me know
> what issues you see with the overall package?
>
> There are source and binary distributions for Unix and Windows if
> anyone wants to play.
>
> Thanks,
> Eddie
Hi Eddie,
here are some things I found. First, binary distribution.
* LICENSE file needs the variables filled in.
* The APR headers still use the old 1.1 Apache license. Is this the
latest version of APR? I'm not suggesting you change the license, to
the contrary. Just wondering if there is a later version available
that's already under the 2.0 license.
* For the release voting, we'll need to say how the documentation is
automatically generated with doxygen (because there are no license
headers).
* uimacpp/include/uima/msg.h and uimacpp/include/uima/msgstrtab.h have
no license headers.
* The licenses do not go into separate subdirectories. Instead, all
licenses are appended to the LICENSE file. In addition, in the NOTICES
file, you spell out what software you include that's not Apache
licensed, and under which license (which is then in the LICENSE file).
You'll need to do that for the ICU, and I guess Xeces and APR, because
they are 1.x licensed. We should ask on incubator-general about the ICU
license, but I assume it's ok because Xerces is also using it.
That's it for today, I'll take another look tomorrow, and hopefully also
at the source distribution.
--Thilo
Re: RC0 for uimacpp distribution
Posted by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Frank. Clearly the scriptators had not been tested on Windows!
Regards,
Eddie
On 4/27/07, LeHouillier, Frank D. <Fr...@gd-ais.com> wrote:
> Eddie,
> Just something I noticed:
> The Scriptator docs reference MakeFiles and .vcproj files that don't
> appear to be in the vc8 release candidate.
>
> Thanks,
> Frank
>
RE: RC0 for uimacpp distribution
Posted by "LeHouillier, Frank D." <Fr...@gd-ais.com>.
Eddie,
Just something I noticed:
The Scriptator docs reference MakeFiles and .vcproj files that don't
appear to be in the vc8 release candidate.
Thanks,
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Eddie Epstein [mailto:eaepstein@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:41 PM
To: uima-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RC0 for uimacpp distribution
There is an initial release candidate for the UIMA C++ framework at
http://people.apache.org/~eae/uimacpp-distributions/2.1.0/RC0/
Thilo, can you please look through the distributions and let me know
what issues you see with the overall package?
There are source and binary distributions for Unix and Windows if
anyone wants to play.
Thanks,
Eddie