You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> on 2009/08/14 22:08:27 UTC
[VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
Incubator PMC for this release.
Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
structured key-value store.
Podling Vote thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
SVN Tag:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
Regards,
--
Eric Evans
eevans@rackspace.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Eric,
On Aug 17, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
>>> Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
>>> legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
>>> licenses separate,
>>
>> I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files
>> starting
>> at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE
>> file should have pointers to the other license files.
>>
>>> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>
>> AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party
>> code
>> included in the propose release.
>
> When preparing for the 0.3.0[0] release I spent a great deal of time
> trying to get all of this right.
And I understand that it's frustrating fetching rocks.
> I looked at list threads for both
> successful and failed podling release votes, I looked at what top-
> level
> projects were doing, and I read through what documentation I could
> find.
> This wasn't as helpful as I'd have liked because the documents are
> non-normative and the application is inconsistent, (and occasionally
> contradictory). So I did the best I could.
>
> The conclusion I came to with respect to NOTICE.txt was that it
> existed
> for purposes of attribution, and was specifically in response to
> section
> 4(d) of the Apache License. As a result, the NOTICE.txt in the
> (approved )0.3.0 artifacts and the proposed 0.4.0, contains two
> attribution statements, one for the Apache licensed Groovy, and one
> for
> "software developed by The Apache Software Foundation" which should
> cover everything else that is Apache licensed.
If you ship ANTLR with your release, you must include that fact in the
NOTICE file, otherwise you're violating the terms of the ANTLR license.
>
> The conclusion I came to for LICENSE.txt was that it was for including
> the full license text applicable to the project itself.
No, it's all of the licenses for all the code you're shipping.
>
> Both of the above conclusions seemed consistent with at least some
> successful podling releases, and with some ASF top-level projects, and
> (to the best of my knowledge), all of the license requirements for our
> third-party dependencies are being met.
>
> However, I'd be happy to go back and correct any shortcomings and
> re-roll the artifacts if that will get us the votes we need to make a
> release. I just wish things were more consistent and that the process
> required a little less groping around in the dark.
Well, the license stuff is the trickiest part of rolling a release.
Craig
>
>
> [0]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg21853.html
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eevans@rackspace.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@holsman.net>.
+1 from me.
On Aug 18, 2009, at 2:12 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Eric Evans<ee...@rackspace.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
>>>> Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
>>>> legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
>>>> licenses separate,
>>>
>>> I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files
>>> starting
>>> at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE
>>> file should have pointers to the other license files.
>>>
>>>> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>>
>>> AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party
>>> code
>>> included in the propose release.
>>
>> When preparing for the 0.3.0[0] release I spent a great deal of time
>> trying to get all of this right. I looked at list threads for both
>> successful and failed podling release votes, I looked at what top-
>> level
>> projects were doing, and I read through what documentation I could
>> find.
>> This wasn't as helpful as I'd have liked because the documents are
>> non-normative and the application is inconsistent, (and occasionally
>> contradictory). So I did the best I could.
>>
>> The conclusion I came to with respect to NOTICE.txt was that it
>> existed
>> for purposes of attribution, and was specifically in response to
>> section
>> 4(d) of the Apache License. As a result, the NOTICE.txt in the
>> (approved )0.3.0 artifacts and the proposed 0.4.0, contains two
>> attribution statements, one for the Apache licensed Groovy, and one
>> for
>> "software developed by The Apache Software Foundation" which should
>> cover everything else that is Apache licensed.
>>
>> The conclusion I came to for LICENSE.txt was that it was for
>> including
>> the full license text applicable to the project itself.
>>
>> Both of the above conclusions seemed consistent with at least some
>> successful podling releases, and with some ASF top-level projects,
>> and
>> (to the best of my knowledge), all of the license requirements for
>> our
>> third-party dependencies are being met.
>>
>> However, I'd be happy to go back and correct any shortcomings and
>> re-roll the artifacts if that will get us the votes we need to make a
>> release. I just wish things were more consistent and that the process
>> required a little less groping around in the dark.
>>
>>
>> [0]
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/
>> msg21853.html
>>
>> --
>> Eric Evans
>> eevans@rackspace.com
>>
>>
>
> Ok, +1 from me to release. Happy to reconsider if anyone can find an
> actual link to some evidence of specific policy that says how this
> release is done is not ok.
>
> ...ant
--
Ian Holsman
Ian@Holsman.net
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@holsman.net>.
+1 from me.
On Aug 18, 2009, at 2:12 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Eric Evans<ee...@rackspace.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
>>>> Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
>>>> legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
>>>> licenses separate,
>>>
>>> I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files
>>> starting
>>> at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE
>>> file should have pointers to the other license files.
>>>
>>>> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>>
>>> AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party
>>> code
>>> included in the propose release.
>>
>> When preparing for the 0.3.0[0] release I spent a great deal of time
>> trying to get all of this right. I looked at list threads for both
>> successful and failed podling release votes, I looked at what top-
>> level
>> projects were doing, and I read through what documentation I could
>> find.
>> This wasn't as helpful as I'd have liked because the documents are
>> non-normative and the application is inconsistent, (and occasionally
>> contradictory). So I did the best I could.
>>
>> The conclusion I came to with respect to NOTICE.txt was that it
>> existed
>> for purposes of attribution, and was specifically in response to
>> section
>> 4(d) of the Apache License. As a result, the NOTICE.txt in the
>> (approved )0.3.0 artifacts and the proposed 0.4.0, contains two
>> attribution statements, one for the Apache licensed Groovy, and one
>> for
>> "software developed by The Apache Software Foundation" which should
>> cover everything else that is Apache licensed.
>>
>> The conclusion I came to for LICENSE.txt was that it was for
>> including
>> the full license text applicable to the project itself.
>>
>> Both of the above conclusions seemed consistent with at least some
>> successful podling releases, and with some ASF top-level projects,
>> and
>> (to the best of my knowledge), all of the license requirements for
>> our
>> third-party dependencies are being met.
>>
>> However, I'd be happy to go back and correct any shortcomings and
>> re-roll the artifacts if that will get us the votes we need to make a
>> release. I just wish things were more consistent and that the process
>> required a little less groping around in the dark.
>>
>>
>> [0]
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/
>> msg21853.html
>>
>> --
>> Eric Evans
>> eevans@rackspace.com
>>
>>
>
> Ok, +1 from me to release. Happy to reconsider if anyone can find an
> actual link to some evidence of specific policy that says how this
> release is done is not ok.
>
> ...ant
--
Ian Holsman
Ian@Holsman.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Eric Evans<ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> > Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
>> > legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
>> > licenses separate,
>>
>> I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting
>> at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE
>> file should have pointers to the other license files.
>>
>> > the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>
>> AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code
>> included in the propose release.
>
> When preparing for the 0.3.0[0] release I spent a great deal of time
> trying to get all of this right. I looked at list threads for both
> successful and failed podling release votes, I looked at what top-level
> projects were doing, and I read through what documentation I could find.
> This wasn't as helpful as I'd have liked because the documents are
> non-normative and the application is inconsistent, (and occasionally
> contradictory). So I did the best I could.
>
> The conclusion I came to with respect to NOTICE.txt was that it existed
> for purposes of attribution, and was specifically in response to section
> 4(d) of the Apache License. As a result, the NOTICE.txt in the
> (approved )0.3.0 artifacts and the proposed 0.4.0, contains two
> attribution statements, one for the Apache licensed Groovy, and one for
> "software developed by The Apache Software Foundation" which should
> cover everything else that is Apache licensed.
>
> The conclusion I came to for LICENSE.txt was that it was for including
> the full license text applicable to the project itself.
>
> Both of the above conclusions seemed consistent with at least some
> successful podling releases, and with some ASF top-level projects, and
> (to the best of my knowledge), all of the license requirements for our
> third-party dependencies are being met.
>
> However, I'd be happy to go back and correct any shortcomings and
> re-roll the artifacts if that will get us the votes we need to make a
> release. I just wish things were more consistent and that the process
> required a little less groping around in the dark.
>
>
> [0]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg21853.html
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eevans@rackspace.com
>
>
Ok, +1 from me to release. Happy to reconsider if anyone can find an
actual link to some evidence of specific policy that says how this
release is done is not ok.
...ant
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Eric,
On Aug 17, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
>>> Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
>>> legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
>>> licenses separate,
>>
>> I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files
>> starting
>> at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE
>> file should have pointers to the other license files.
>>
>>> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>
>> AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party
>> code
>> included in the propose release.
>
> When preparing for the 0.3.0[0] release I spent a great deal of time
> trying to get all of this right.
And I understand that it's frustrating fetching rocks.
> I looked at list threads for both
> successful and failed podling release votes, I looked at what top-
> level
> projects were doing, and I read through what documentation I could
> find.
> This wasn't as helpful as I'd have liked because the documents are
> non-normative and the application is inconsistent, (and occasionally
> contradictory). So I did the best I could.
>
> The conclusion I came to with respect to NOTICE.txt was that it
> existed
> for purposes of attribution, and was specifically in response to
> section
> 4(d) of the Apache License. As a result, the NOTICE.txt in the
> (approved )0.3.0 artifacts and the proposed 0.4.0, contains two
> attribution statements, one for the Apache licensed Groovy, and one
> for
> "software developed by The Apache Software Foundation" which should
> cover everything else that is Apache licensed.
If you ship ANTLR with your release, you must include that fact in the
NOTICE file, otherwise you're violating the terms of the ANTLR license.
>
> The conclusion I came to for LICENSE.txt was that it was for including
> the full license text applicable to the project itself.
No, it's all of the licenses for all the code you're shipping.
>
> Both of the above conclusions seemed consistent with at least some
> successful podling releases, and with some ASF top-level projects, and
> (to the best of my knowledge), all of the license requirements for our
> third-party dependencies are being met.
>
> However, I'd be happy to go back and correct any shortcomings and
> re-roll the artifacts if that will get us the votes we need to make a
> release. I just wish things were more consistent and that the process
> required a little less groping around in the dark.
Well, the license stuff is the trickiest part of rolling a release.
Craig
>
>
> [0]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg21853.html
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eevans@rackspace.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Eric Evans<ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> > Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
>> > legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
>> > licenses separate,
>>
>> I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting
>> at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE
>> file should have pointers to the other license files.
>>
>> > the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>
>> AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code
>> included in the propose release.
>
> When preparing for the 0.3.0[0] release I spent a great deal of time
> trying to get all of this right. I looked at list threads for both
> successful and failed podling release votes, I looked at what top-level
> projects were doing, and I read through what documentation I could find.
> This wasn't as helpful as I'd have liked because the documents are
> non-normative and the application is inconsistent, (and occasionally
> contradictory). So I did the best I could.
>
> The conclusion I came to with respect to NOTICE.txt was that it existed
> for purposes of attribution, and was specifically in response to section
> 4(d) of the Apache License. As a result, the NOTICE.txt in the
> (approved )0.3.0 artifacts and the proposed 0.4.0, contains two
> attribution statements, one for the Apache licensed Groovy, and one for
> "software developed by The Apache Software Foundation" which should
> cover everything else that is Apache licensed.
>
> The conclusion I came to for LICENSE.txt was that it was for including
> the full license text applicable to the project itself.
>
> Both of the above conclusions seemed consistent with at least some
> successful podling releases, and with some ASF top-level projects, and
> (to the best of my knowledge), all of the license requirements for our
> third-party dependencies are being met.
>
> However, I'd be happy to go back and correct any shortcomings and
> re-roll the artifacts if that will get us the votes we need to make a
> release. I just wish things were more consistent and that the process
> required a little less groping around in the dark.
>
>
> [0]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg21853.html
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eevans@rackspace.com
>
>
Ok, +1 from me to release. Happy to reconsider if anyone can find an
actual link to some evidence of specific policy that says how this
release is done is not ok.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com>.
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
> > Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
> > legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
> > licenses separate,
>
> I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting
> at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE
> file should have pointers to the other license files.
>
> > the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>
> AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code
> included in the propose release.
When preparing for the 0.3.0[0] release I spent a great deal of time
trying to get all of this right. I looked at list threads for both
successful and failed podling release votes, I looked at what top-level
projects were doing, and I read through what documentation I could find.
This wasn't as helpful as I'd have liked because the documents are
non-normative and the application is inconsistent, (and occasionally
contradictory). So I did the best I could.
The conclusion I came to with respect to NOTICE.txt was that it existed
for purposes of attribution, and was specifically in response to section
4(d) of the Apache License. As a result, the NOTICE.txt in the
(approved )0.3.0 artifacts and the proposed 0.4.0, contains two
attribution statements, one for the Apache licensed Groovy, and one for
"software developed by The Apache Software Foundation" which should
cover everything else that is Apache licensed.
The conclusion I came to for LICENSE.txt was that it was for including
the full license text applicable to the project itself.
Both of the above conclusions seemed consistent with at least some
successful podling releases, and with some ASF top-level projects, and
(to the best of my knowledge), all of the license requirements for our
third-party dependencies are being met.
However, I'd be happy to go back and correct any shortcomings and
re-roll the artifacts if that will get us the votes we need to make a
release. I just wish things were more consistent and that the process
required a little less groping around in the dark.
[0]
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg21853.html
--
Eric Evans
eevans@rackspace.com
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Craig L Russell<Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> Hi Ant,
>
> On Aug 17, 2009, at 8:40 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russell<Cr...@sun.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ant,
>>>
>>> On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party
>>>>>> code
>>>>>> > included in the propose release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
>>>>>> copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
>>>>>
>>>>> So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they
>>>>> require attribution or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require
>>>>> attribution (notice).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so
>>>> precisely defined.
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says:
>>>>
>>>> "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
>>>> third-party notices"
>>>
>>> The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect
>>> to
>>> find *all* *required* third-party notices.
>>>>
>>>> but there is nothing that defines what are "required third-party
>>>> notices". The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says:
>>>>
>>>> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
>>>
>>> When a notice includes the words "required", "must", "shall", or other
>>> imperative, then the notice is considered to be a "required third-party
>>> notice". And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file
>>> of
>>> the distribution.
>>
>> But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the
>> entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the
>> ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced:
>>
>> 1) the above copyright notice
>> 2) this list of conditions
>> 3) the following disclaimer
>>
>> So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in
>> the NOTICE file?
>
> Yes! This is the "required notice" that we're talking about.
>
I don't agree. There's nothing in any ASF policy docs that i can find
to back that up and the discussion on legal-discuss@ about LEGAL-59
agrees that nothing is needed in the NOTICE file for BSD licenses -
http://apache.markmail.org/message/4ldaiay2vrzmlgxe
So again, +1 from me to release this as is.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Ant,
On Aug 17, 2009, at 8:40 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L
> Russell<Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ant,
>>
>> On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd
>>>>> party
>>>>> code
>>>>> > included in the propose release.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
>>>>> copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
>>>>
>>>> So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they
>>>> require attribution or not.
>>>>
>>>> I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require
>>>> attribution (notice).
>>>>
>>>
>>> The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so
>>> precisely defined.
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says:
>>>
>>> "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
>>> third-party notices"
>>
>> The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software
>> expect to
>> find *all* *required* third-party notices.
>>>
>>> but there is nothing that defines what are "required third-party
>>> notices". The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html)
>>> says:
>>>
>>> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the
>>> distribution."
>>
>> When a notice includes the words "required", "must", "shall", or
>> other
>> imperative, then the notice is considered to be a "required third-
>> party
>> notice". And it should therefore be placed into the top level
>> NOTICE file of
>> the distribution.
>
> But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the
> entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the
> ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced:
>
> 1) the above copyright notice
> 2) this list of conditions
> 3) the following disclaimer
>
> So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in
> the NOTICE file?
Yes! This is the "required notice" that we're talking about.
From the Antlr web page referenced above http://www.antlr.org/license.html
you need to put this into your NOTICE file:
Antlr is covered by the following notice:
Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terence Parr
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
• Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
• Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
• Neither the name of the author nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> I've not seen any Apache projects do that.
And your LICENSE file contains the text of the BSD license with the
notation that the Antlr bit is covered by the BSD license.
Craig
>
> ...ant
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 17/08/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russell<Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> > Hi Ant,
> >
> > On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party
> >>>> code
> >>>> > included in the propose release.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
> >>>> copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
> >>>
> >>> So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they
> >>> require attribution or not.
> >>>
> >>> I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require
> >>> attribution (notice).
> >>>
> >>
> >> The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so
> >> precisely defined.
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says:
> >>
> >> "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
> >> third-party notices"
> >
> > The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect to
> > find *all* *required* third-party notices.
> >>
> >> but there is nothing that defines what are "required third-party
> >> notices". The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says:
> >>
> >> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> >> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> >> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
> >
> > When a notice includes the words "required", "must", "shall", or other
> > imperative, then the notice is considered to be a "required third-party
> > notice". And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file of
> > the distribution.
>
>
> But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the
> entire ANTLR license should be included
Yes.
> in the NOTICE file
No, it can be elsewhere.
> because the
> ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced:
>
> 1) the above copyright notice
That's the NOTICE bit.
> 2) this list of conditions
> 3) the following disclaimer
>
> So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in
> the NOTICE file? I've not seen any Apache projects do that.
No, just put the Copyright header in the NOTICE file
Put the entire license in the LICENSE file.
>
> ...ant
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Robert Burrell
> Donkin<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russell<Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Ant,
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party
>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>> > included in the propose release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
>>>>>>> copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they
>>>>>> require attribution or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require
>>>>>> attribution (notice).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so
>>>>> precisely defined.
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
>>>>> third-party notices"
>>>>
>>>> The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect to
>>>> find *all* *required* third-party notices.
>>>>>
>>>>> but there is nothing that defines what are "required third-party
>>>>> notices". The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>>>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
>>>>
>>>> When a notice includes the words "required", "must", "shall", or other
>>>> imperative, then the notice is considered to be a "required third-party
>>>> notice". And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file of
>>>> the distribution.
>>>
>>> But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the
>>> entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the
>>> ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced:
>>>
>>> 1) the above copyright notice
>>> 2) this list of conditions
>>> 3) the following disclaimer
>>>
>>> So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in
>>> the NOTICE file?
>>
>> effectively the complete license (including the copyright statement)
>> needs to be reproduced:
>>
>> <blockquote>
>> ANTLR3 is:
>> Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terence Parr
>> All rights reserved.
>>
>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
>> met:
>>
>> * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>> * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
>> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
>> in the
>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>> * Neither the name of the author nor the names of its contributors
>> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
>> without specific prior written permission.
>>
>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
>> "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
>> WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
>> MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
>> PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
>> OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
>> ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
>> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
>> PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
>> PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
>> HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
>> STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
>> NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
>> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
>> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>> </blockquote>
>>
>>> I've not seen any Apache projects do that.
>>
>> i don't recall ever seeing that either but we do try to evolve. some
>> might interpret the above text as a LICENSE (and not a NOTICE). this
>> would then lead to the conclusion that the embedded text version in
>> LICENSE would be enough without duplication in NOTICE. (note that this
>> argument only applies when the license is embedded in the LICENSE
>> document.)
>>
>> the easiest way to resolve this is just ask the legal committee to
>> take and document a decision about interpretation
>>
>
> LEGAL-31 looks like it will cover this but its not yet resolved.
i was thinking about guidance on the specific (and a little unusual) case of BSD
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Robert Burrell
Donkin<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russell<Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Ant,
>>>
>>> On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party
>>>>>> code
>>>>>> > included in the propose release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
>>>>>> copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
>>>>>
>>>>> So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they
>>>>> require attribution or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require
>>>>> attribution (notice).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so
>>>> precisely defined.
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says:
>>>>
>>>> "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
>>>> third-party notices"
>>>
>>> The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect to
>>> find *all* *required* third-party notices.
>>>>
>>>> but there is nothing that defines what are "required third-party
>>>> notices". The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says:
>>>>
>>>> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
>>>
>>> When a notice includes the words "required", "must", "shall", or other
>>> imperative, then the notice is considered to be a "required third-party
>>> notice". And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file of
>>> the distribution.
>>
>> But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the
>> entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the
>> ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced:
>>
>> 1) the above copyright notice
>> 2) this list of conditions
>> 3) the following disclaimer
>>
>> So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in
>> the NOTICE file?
>
> effectively the complete license (including the copyright statement)
> needs to be reproduced:
>
> <blockquote>
> ANTLR3 is:
> Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terence Parr
> All rights reserved.
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
> met:
>
> * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
> in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> * Neither the name of the author nor the names of its contributors
> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
> without specific prior written permission.
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
> "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
> WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
> PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
> OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
> ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
> PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
> PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
> HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
> STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
> NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> </blockquote>
>
>> I've not seen any Apache projects do that.
>
> i don't recall ever seeing that either but we do try to evolve. some
> might interpret the above text as a LICENSE (and not a NOTICE). this
> would then lead to the conclusion that the embedded text version in
> LICENSE would be enough without duplication in NOTICE. (note that this
> argument only applies when the license is embedded in the LICENSE
> document.)
>
> the easiest way to resolve this is just ask the legal committee to
> take and document a decision about interpretation
>
LEGAL-31 looks like it will cover this but its not yet resolved. Other
TLPs and poddlings do releases like this one is, so would it be
possible to get another +1 on this release in the meantime so its not
held up?
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russell<Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ant,
>>
>> On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party
>>>>> code
>>>>> > included in the propose release.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
>>>>> copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
>>>>
>>>> So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they
>>>> require attribution or not.
>>>>
>>>> I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require
>>>> attribution (notice).
>>>>
>>>
>>> The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so
>>> precisely defined.
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says:
>>>
>>> "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
>>> third-party notices"
>>
>> The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect to
>> find *all* *required* third-party notices.
>>>
>>> but there is nothing that defines what are "required third-party
>>> notices". The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says:
>>>
>>> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
>>
>> When a notice includes the words "required", "must", "shall", or other
>> imperative, then the notice is considered to be a "required third-party
>> notice". And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file of
>> the distribution.
>
> But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the
> entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the
> ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced:
>
> 1) the above copyright notice
> 2) this list of conditions
> 3) the following disclaimer
>
> So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in
> the NOTICE file?
effectively the complete license (including the copyright statement)
needs to be reproduced:
<blockquote>
ANTLR3 is:
Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terence Parr
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the author nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
</blockquote>
> I've not seen any Apache projects do that.
i don't recall ever seeing that either but we do try to evolve. some
might interpret the above text as a LICENSE (and not a NOTICE). this
would then lead to the conclusion that the embedded text version in
LICENSE would be enough without duplication in NOTICE. (note that this
argument only applies when the license is embedded in the LICENSE
document.)
the easiest way to resolve this is just ask the legal committee to
take and document a decision about interpretation
FWIW i see no reason not to duplicate in both LICENSE and NOTICE as
that'll improve communication
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russell<Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> Hi Ant,
>
> On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>>> >
>>>> > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party
>>>> code
>>>> > included in the propose release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
>>>> copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
>>>
>>> So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they
>>> require attribution or not.
>>>
>>> I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require
>>> attribution (notice).
>>>
>>
>> The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so
>> precisely defined.
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says:
>>
>> "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
>> third-party notices"
>
> The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect to
> find *all* *required* third-party notices.
>>
>> but there is nothing that defines what are "required third-party
>> notices". The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says:
>>
>> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
>
> When a notice includes the words "required", "must", "shall", or other
> imperative, then the notice is considered to be a "required third-party
> notice". And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file of
> the distribution.
But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the
entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the
ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced:
1) the above copyright notice
2) this list of conditions
3) the following disclaimer
So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in
the NOTICE file? I've not seen any Apache projects do that.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Ant,
On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>> >
>>> > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd
>>> party code
>>> > included in the propose release.
>>>
>>>
>>> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
>>> copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-
>>> headers.html#notice)
>>
>> So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they
>> require attribution or not.
>>
>> I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require
>> attribution (notice).
>>
>
> The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so
> precisely defined.
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says:
>
> "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
> third-party notices"
The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software
expect to find *all* *required* third-party notices.
>
> but there is nothing that defines what are "required third-party
> notices". The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says:
>
> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
When a notice includes the words "required", "must", "shall", or other
imperative, then the notice is considered to be a "required third-
party notice". And it should therefore be placed into the top level
NOTICE file of the distribution.
>
> This is done in the Cassandra release by including the complete ANTLR
> license in a separate license file,
This is not sufficient.
> and as thats done it covers all
> the ANTLR requirements so is there any specific ASF policy that says
> its also necessary to have anything related to ANTLR in the NOTICE
> file?
The reason the Apache policy is written the way it is, is to avoid
downstream users from having to search through lots of different files
with non-standard names to find all the third-party notices.
Craig
>
> ...ant
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>> >
>> > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code
>> > included in the propose release.
>>
>>
>> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
>> copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
>
> So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they
> require attribution or not.
>
> I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require
> attribution (notice).
>
The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so
precisely defined.
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says:
"The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
third-party notices"
but there is nothing that defines what are "required third-party
notices". The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says:
"Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
This is done in the Cassandra release by including the complete ANTLR
license in a separate license file, and as thats done it covers all
the ANTLR requirements so is there any specific ASF policy that says
its also necessary to have anything related to ANTLR in the NOTICE
file?
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 17/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:00 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 17/08/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >> Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
> >> legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
> >> licenses separate,
> >
> > I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting
> > at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE
> > file should have pointers to the other license files.
>
>
> apache policy doesn't make this necessary but it is best practice.
> it's sebb's call whether he's willing to +1 a release.
What is the ASF policy for 3rd party LICENSEs then?
>
> >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
> >
> > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code
> > included in the propose release.
>
>
> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
> copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they
require attribution or not.
I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require
attribution (notice).
>
> - robert
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:00 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/08/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
>> legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
>> licenses separate,
>
> I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting
> at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE
> file should have pointers to the other license files.
apache policy doesn't make this necessary but it is best practice.
it's sebb's call whether he's willing to +1 a release.
>> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>
> AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code
> included in the propose release.
no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com>.
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
> > Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
> > legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
> > licenses separate,
>
> I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting
> at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE
> file should have pointers to the other license files.
>
> > the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>
> AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code
> included in the propose release.
When preparing for the 0.3.0[0] release I spent a great deal of time
trying to get all of this right. I looked at list threads for both
successful and failed podling release votes, I looked at what top-level
projects were doing, and I read through what documentation I could find.
This wasn't as helpful as I'd have liked because the documents are
non-normative and the application is inconsistent, (and occasionally
contradictory). So I did the best I could.
The conclusion I came to with respect to NOTICE.txt was that it existed
for purposes of attribution, and was specifically in response to section
4(d) of the Apache License. As a result, the NOTICE.txt in the
(approved )0.3.0 artifacts and the proposed 0.4.0, contains two
attribution statements, one for the Apache licensed Groovy, and one for
"software developed by The Apache Software Foundation" which should
cover everything else that is Apache licensed.
The conclusion I came to for LICENSE.txt was that it was for including
the full license text applicable to the project itself.
Both of the above conclusions seemed consistent with at least some
successful podling releases, and with some ASF top-level projects, and
(to the best of my knowledge), all of the license requirements for our
third-party dependencies are being met.
However, I'd be happy to go back and correct any shortcomings and
re-roll the artifacts if that will get us the votes we need to make a
release. I just wish things were more consistent and that the process
required a little less groping around in the dark.
[0]
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg21853.html
--
Eric Evans
eevans@rackspace.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 17/08/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 14/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> >> The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
> >> Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
> >> Incubator PMC for this release.
> >>
> >> Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
> >> structured key-value store.
> >>
> >> Podling Vote thread:
> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
> >> 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
> >
> > No zip archives.
> >
> >> SVN Tag:
> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
> >
> > Lots of missing SVN properties, see CASSANDRA-368
> >
> > The NOTICE file should not contain the line
> > "Developers and Contributors are listed in the project POM file"
> >
> > It only mentions Groovy, yet the binary archive contains several other jars:
> >
> > antlr-3.1.3.jar
> > apache-cassandra-incubating-0.4.0-beta1.jar
> > clhm-20090629.jar
> > commons-cli-1.1.jar
> > commons-collections-3.2.1.jar
> > commons-javaflow-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
> > commons-lang-2.4.jar
> > google-collect-1.0-rc1.jar
> > groovy-1.5.6.jar
> > high-scale-lib.jar
> > jline-0.9.94.jar
> > junit-4.6.jar
> > libthrift.jar
> > log4j-1.2.15.jar
> >
> > The commons jars are OK, but surely the others need mentioning?
> > Is JUnit needed at run-time? If not, don't include it.
> >
> > The different license files all need to be included in the top-level
> > LICENSE.txt file
> >
> > No need to mention commons or other ASF jars, but the others should be
> > mentioned, e.g. add at the end:
> >
> > x,y, and z are licensed under the AL 2.0, see above.
> >
> > The license for X is here:
> > [Include license text]
> >
> > Etc.
> >
> >> Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
> >> Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Eric Evans
> >> eevans@rackspace.com
> >>
>
>
> Could you say which if any of those are blocking issues that must be
> fixed for this release?
The SVN properties are not blocking.
> Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
> legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
> licenses separate,
I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting
at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE
file should have pointers to the other license files.
> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code
included in the propose release.
>
> ...ant
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>> The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
>> Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
>> Incubator PMC for this release.
>>
>> Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
>> structured key-value store.
>>
>> Podling Vote thread:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
>> 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
>
> No zip archives.
>
>> SVN Tag:
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
>
> Lots of missing SVN properties, see CASSANDRA-368
>
> The NOTICE file should not contain the line
> "Developers and Contributors are listed in the project POM file"
>
> It only mentions Groovy, yet the binary archive contains several other jars:
>
> antlr-3.1.3.jar
> apache-cassandra-incubating-0.4.0-beta1.jar
> clhm-20090629.jar
> commons-cli-1.1.jar
> commons-collections-3.2.1.jar
> commons-javaflow-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
> commons-lang-2.4.jar
> google-collect-1.0-rc1.jar
> groovy-1.5.6.jar
> high-scale-lib.jar
> jline-0.9.94.jar
> junit-4.6.jar
> libthrift.jar
> log4j-1.2.15.jar
>
> The commons jars are OK, but surely the others need mentioning?
> Is JUnit needed at run-time? If not, don't include it.
>
> The different license files all need to be included in the top-level
> LICENSE.txt file
>
> No need to mention commons or other ASF jars, but the others should be
> mentioned, e.g. add at the end:
>
> x,y, and z are licensed under the AL 2.0, see above.
>
> The license for X is here:
> [Include license text]
>
> Etc.
>
>> Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
>> Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eric Evans
>> eevans@rackspace.com
>>
Could you say which if any of those are blocking issues that must be
fixed for this release? Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
licenses separate, the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>> The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
>> Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
>> Incubator PMC for this release.
>>
>> Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
>> structured key-value store.
>>
>> Podling Vote thread:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
>> 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
>
> No zip archives.
>
>> SVN Tag:
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
>
> Lots of missing SVN properties, see CASSANDRA-368
>
> The NOTICE file should not contain the line
> "Developers and Contributors are listed in the project POM file"
>
> It only mentions Groovy, yet the binary archive contains several other jars:
>
> antlr-3.1.3.jar
> apache-cassandra-incubating-0.4.0-beta1.jar
> clhm-20090629.jar
> commons-cli-1.1.jar
> commons-collections-3.2.1.jar
> commons-javaflow-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
> commons-lang-2.4.jar
> google-collect-1.0-rc1.jar
> groovy-1.5.6.jar
> high-scale-lib.jar
> jline-0.9.94.jar
> junit-4.6.jar
> libthrift.jar
> log4j-1.2.15.jar
Commons Javaflow has never been released by the Apache Commons PMC -
so it seems at best a bad practice to release it as part of Cassandra.
Are you also releasing the source code that relates to that SNAPSHOT
jar?
Niall
> The commons jars are OK, but surely the others need mentioning?
> Is JUnit needed at run-time? If not, don't include it.
>
> The different license files all need to be included in the top-level
> LICENSE.txt file
>
> No need to mention commons or other ASF jars, but the others should be
> mentioned, e.g. add at the end:
>
> x,y, and z are licensed under the AL 2.0, see above.
>
> The license for X is here:
> [Include license text]
>
> Etc.
>
>> Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
>> Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eric Evans
>> eevans@rackspace.com
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 14/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
> Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
> Incubator PMC for this release.
>
> Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
> structured key-value store.
>
> Podling Vote thread:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
> 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
No zip archives.
> SVN Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
Lots of missing SVN properties, see CASSANDRA-368
The NOTICE file should not contain the line
"Developers and Contributors are listed in the project POM file"
It only mentions Groovy, yet the binary archive contains several other jars:
antlr-3.1.3.jar
apache-cassandra-incubating-0.4.0-beta1.jar
clhm-20090629.jar
commons-cli-1.1.jar
commons-collections-3.2.1.jar
commons-javaflow-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
commons-lang-2.4.jar
google-collect-1.0-rc1.jar
groovy-1.5.6.jar
high-scale-lib.jar
jline-0.9.94.jar
junit-4.6.jar
libthrift.jar
log4j-1.2.15.jar
The commons jars are OK, but surely the others need mentioning?
Is JUnit needed at run-time? If not, don't include it.
The different license files all need to be included in the top-level
LICENSE.txt file
No need to mention commons or other ASF jars, but the others should be
mentioned, e.g. add at the end:
x,y, and z are licensed under the AL 2.0, see above.
The license for X is here:
[Include license text]
Etc.
> Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
> Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eevans@rackspace.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com>.
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 09:56 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and
> NOTICE.txt in its META-INF dir.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-566
--
Eric Evans
eevans@rackspace.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:05:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Joe Schaeferwrote:
> >> The relevant commit is r665124- Simon Forman doesn't yet have an ICLA
> >> on file with the ASF.
> >
> > I should probably explain the issue in more detail, since only the handful
> > of people who have read the Facebook CCLA as it pertains to Thrift
> > understand what I'm talking about.
> >
> > First take a look at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=665124
>
> Not to muddy the water further, but that commit says it is by mcslee
> and reviewed by Simon. Surely reviewing it doesn't give Simon any
> ownership rights?
I'm not putting much stock in what the commit log says- the fact that he's
listed as a contributor for that commit combined with the fact that the
Facebook CCLA lists him as an exclusion is what I'm basing my opinion on.
Only the Thrift devs would know definitively what Simon actually did.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Joe Schaefer<jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The relevant commit is r665124- Simon Forman doesn't yet have an ICLA
>> on file with the ASF.
>
> I should probably explain the issue in more detail, since only the handful
> of people who have read the Facebook CCLA as it pertains to Thrift
> understand what I'm talking about.
>
> First take a look at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=665124
Not to muddy the water further, but that commit says it is by mcslee
and reviewed by Simon. Surely reviewing it doesn't give Simon any
ownership rights?
-Jonathan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:20:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>
> > From: Joe Schaefer
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:13:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> > > From: ant elder
> > > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:05:03 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Joe Schaeferwrote:
> > > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > >
> > > >> From: Joe Schaefer
> > > >> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> > > >> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM
> > > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> > > >>
> > > >> ----- Original Message ----
> > > >>
> > > >> > From: ant elder
> > > >> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
> > > >> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
> > > >> > > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> > > >> > >> * 0 votes: 0
> > > >> > >> * -1 votes: 0
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> The vote passes.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> > > >> > > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> > > >> > > the LICENSE file.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> > > >> > > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> > > >> > done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> > > >> > need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> > > >> > license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> > > >> > party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> > > >> > the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
> > > >>
> > > >> I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
> > > >> the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
> > > >> is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
> > > >> the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
> > > >> affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components
> distributed
> > > >> by the cassandra candidate.
> > > >
> > > > The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt
> > > > in its META-INF dir.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Though that is only required if the libthrift.jar is to be distributed
> > > separately, eg from a Maven repository, which isn't the case at the
> > > moment.
> >
> > Agreed that that aspect isn't essential here. The real issue is to figure out
> > what the licensing terms are on the TProcessorFactory component.
>
> The relevant commit is r665124- Simon Forman doesn't yet have an ICLA
> on file with the ASF.
I should probably explain the issue in more detail, since only the handful
of people who have read the Facebook CCLA as it pertains to Thrift
understand what I'm talking about.
First take a look at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=665124
That code is the property of Simon Forman, not Facebook, because Facebook
apparently expended no effort in obtaining copyright assignments or any other
form of licensing agreement which would give Facebook clear title to it.
The reason that code is in our subversion repository is because it was loaded
by me into our repo based on an svn dump provided by Facebook. Thus Simon
has implicitly licensed his work to Facebook to be distributed under the
Thrift License, which is an MIT variant. And they distributed his work
to us under that license, which is why I loaded it into our repo.
In the course of doing their work at Apache, the Thrift developers changed
all the Thrift-licensed code to the Apache License. Unfortunately nothing
gives them the right to do that with Simon Forman's contribution until and unless
Simon either explicitly approves of the change or better yet faxes in an ICLA
to Apache. Thus there is an outstanding problem with the current license
on those files.
Simon Forman is not alone, but fortunately there are only a handful of
outstanding exceptions to deal with. I have no idea if his contributions
are the only ones outstanding for the Java code within Thrift. What I
have done so far is talked about the issue to the legal team and written
Simon asking for him to send in an ICLA. If Simon doesn't get back to us
and never offers his approval, we can treat his contributions as we would
any other third party, and in this case sublicense his work. But we need
to do that properly if it comes to that.
HTH
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:20:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>
> > From: Joe Schaefer
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:13:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> > > From: ant elder
> > > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:05:03 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Joe Schaeferwrote:
> > > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > >
> > > >> From: Joe Schaefer
> > > >> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> > > >> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM
> > > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> > > >>
> > > >> ----- Original Message ----
> > > >>
> > > >> > From: ant elder
> > > >> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
> > > >> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
> > > >> > > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> > > >> > >> * 0 votes: 0
> > > >> > >> * -1 votes: 0
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> The vote passes.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> > > >> > > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> > > >> > > the LICENSE file.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> > > >> > > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> > > >> > done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> > > >> > need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> > > >> > license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> > > >> > party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> > > >> > the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
> > > >>
> > > >> I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
> > > >> the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
> > > >> is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
> > > >> the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
> > > >> affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components
> distributed
> > > >> by the cassandra candidate.
> > > >
> > > > The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt
> > > > in its META-INF dir.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Though that is only required if the libthrift.jar is to be distributed
> > > separately, eg from a Maven repository, which isn't the case at the
> > > moment.
> >
> > Agreed that that aspect isn't essential here. The real issue is to figure out
> > what the licensing terms are on the TProcessorFactory component.
>
> The relevant commit is r665124- Simon Forman doesn't yet have an ICLA
> on file with the ASF.
I should probably explain the issue in more detail, since only the handful
of people who have read the Facebook CCLA as it pertains to Thrift
understand what I'm talking about.
First take a look at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=665124
That code is the property of Simon Forman, not Facebook, because Facebook
apparently expended no effort in obtaining copyright assignments or any other
form of licensing agreement which would give Facebook clear title to it.
The reason that code is in our subversion repository is because it was loaded
by me into our repo based on an svn dump provided by Facebook. Thus Simon
has implicitly licensed his work to Facebook to be distributed under the
Thrift License, which is an MIT variant. And they distributed his work
to us under that license, which is why I loaded it into our repo.
In the course of doing their work at Apache, the Thrift developers changed
all the Thrift-licensed code to the Apache License. Unfortunately nothing
gives them the right to do that with Simon Forman's contribution until and unless
Simon either explicitly approves of the change or better yet faxes in an ICLA
to Apache. Thus there is an outstanding problem with the current license
on those files.
Simon Forman is not alone, but fortunately there are only a handful of
outstanding exceptions to deal with. I have no idea if his contributions
are the only ones outstanding for the Java code within Thrift. What I
have done so far is talked about the issue to the legal team and written
Simon asking for him to send in an ICLA. If Simon doesn't get back to us
and never offers his approval, we can treat his contributions as we would
any other third party, and in this case sublicense his work. But we need
to do that properly if it comes to that.
HTH
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:13:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>
> > From: ant elder
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:05:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Joe Schaeferwrote:
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > >
> > >> From: Joe Schaefer
> > >> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> > >> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message ----
> > >>
> > >> > From: ant elder
> > >> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
> > >> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
> > >> > > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> > >> > >> * 0 votes: 0
> > >> > >> * -1 votes: 0
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The vote passes.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> > >> > > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> > >> > > the LICENSE file.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> > >> > > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> > >> > done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> > >> > need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> > >> > license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> > >> > party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> > >> > the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
> > >>
> > >> I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
> > >> the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
> > >> is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
> > >> the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
> > >> affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed
> > >> by the cassandra candidate.
> > >
> > > The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt
> > > in its META-INF dir.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Though that is only required if the libthrift.jar is to be distributed
> > separately, eg from a Maven repository, which isn't the case at the
> > moment.
>
> Agreed that that aspect isn't essential here. The real issue is to figure out
> what the licensing terms are on the TProcessorFactory component.
The relevant commit is r665124- Simon Forman doesn't yet have an ICLA
on file with the ASF.
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:13:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>
> > From: ant elder
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:05:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Joe Schaeferwrote:
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > >
> > >> From: Joe Schaefer
> > >> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> > >> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message ----
> > >>
> > >> > From: ant elder
> > >> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
> > >> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
> > >> > > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> > >> > >> * 0 votes: 0
> > >> > >> * -1 votes: 0
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The vote passes.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> > >> > > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> > >> > > the LICENSE file.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> > >> > > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> > >> > done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> > >> > need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> > >> > license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> > >> > party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> > >> > the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
> > >>
> > >> I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
> > >> the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
> > >> is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
> > >> the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
> > >> affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed
> > >> by the cassandra candidate.
> > >
> > > The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt
> > > in its META-INF dir.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Though that is only required if the libthrift.jar is to be distributed
> > separately, eg from a Maven repository, which isn't the case at the
> > moment.
>
> Agreed that that aspect isn't essential here. The real issue is to figure out
> what the licensing terms are on the TProcessorFactory component.
The relevant commit is r665124- Simon Forman doesn't yet have an ICLA
on file with the ASF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: ant elder <an...@apache.org>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:05:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Joe Schaeferwrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Joe Schaefer
> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> >> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >>
> >> > From: ant elder
> >> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
> >> > > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> >> > >> * 0 votes: 0
> >> > >> * -1 votes: 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The vote passes.
> >> > >
> >> > > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> >> > > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> >> > > the LICENSE file.
> >> > >
> >> > > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> >> > > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> >> > done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> >> > need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> >> > license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> >> > party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> >> > the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
> >>
> >> I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
> >> the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
> >> is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
> >> the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
> >> affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed
> >> by the cassandra candidate.
> >
> > The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt
> > in its META-INF dir.
> >
> >
>
> Though that is only required if the libthrift.jar is to be distributed
> separately, eg from a Maven repository, which isn't the case at the
> moment.
Agreed that that aspect isn't essential here. The real issue is to figure out
what the licensing terms are on the TProcessorFactory component.
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: ant elder <an...@apache.org>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:05:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Joe Schaeferwrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Joe Schaefer
> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> >> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >>
> >> > From: ant elder
> >> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
> >> > > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> >> > >> * 0 votes: 0
> >> > >> * -1 votes: 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The vote passes.
> >> > >
> >> > > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> >> > > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> >> > > the LICENSE file.
> >> > >
> >> > > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> >> > > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> >> > done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> >> > need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> >> > license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> >> > party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> >> > the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
> >>
> >> I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
> >> the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
> >> is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
> >> the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
> >> affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed
> >> by the cassandra candidate.
> >
> > The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt
> > in its META-INF dir.
> >
> >
>
> Though that is only required if the libthrift.jar is to be distributed
> separately, eg from a Maven repository, which isn't the case at the
> moment.
Agreed that that aspect isn't essential here. The real issue is to figure out
what the licensing terms are on the TProcessorFactory component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Joe Schaefer<jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
>> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>
>> > From: ant elder
>> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
>> > > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
>> > >>
>> > >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
>> > >> * 0 votes: 0
>> > >> * -1 votes: 0
>> > >>
>> > >> The vote passes.
>> > >
>> > > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
>> > > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
>> > > the LICENSE file.
>> > >
>> > > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
>> > > libraries, apart from Groovy.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
>> > done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
>> > need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
>> > license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
>> > party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
>> > the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
>>
>> I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
>> the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
>> is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
>> the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
>> affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed
>> by the cassandra candidate.
>
> The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt
> in its META-INF dir.
>
>
Though that is only required if the libthrift.jar is to be distributed
separately, eg from a Maven repository, which isn't the case at the
moment.
...ant
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Joe Schaefer<jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
>> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>
>> > From: ant elder
>> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
>> > > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
>> > >>
>> > >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
>> > >> * 0 votes: 0
>> > >> * -1 votes: 0
>> > >>
>> > >> The vote passes.
>> > >
>> > > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
>> > > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
>> > > the LICENSE file.
>> > >
>> > > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
>> > > libraries, apart from Groovy.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
>> > done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
>> > need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
>> > license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
>> > party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
>> > the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
>>
>> I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
>> the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
>> is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
>> the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
>> affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed
>> by the cassandra candidate.
>
> The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt
> in its META-INF dir.
>
>
Though that is only required if the libthrift.jar is to be distributed
separately, eg from a Maven repository, which isn't the case at the
moment.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>
> > From: ant elder
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
> > > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
> > >>
> > >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> > >> * 0 votes: 0
> > >> * -1 votes: 0
> > >>
> > >> The vote passes.
> > >
> > > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> > > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> > > the LICENSE file.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> > > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> > >
> >
> > Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> > done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> > need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> > license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> > party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> > the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
>
> I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
> the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
> is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
> the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
> affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed
> by the cassandra candidate.
The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt
in its META-INF dir.
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Works for me, but to get my +1 I need to see
libthrift.jar sorted out.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:55:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>
> On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 07:58 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory
> > in the LICENSE file.
>
> Does the patch attached to CASSANDRA-371[0] suffice?
>
>
> [0]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12416885/v1-0001-CASSANDRA-371-top-level-reference-of-lib-licenses.txt
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eevans@rackspace.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com>.
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 07:58 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory
> in the LICENSE file.
Does the patch attached to CASSANDRA-371[0] suffice?
[0]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12416885/v1-0001-CASSANDRA-371-top-level-reference-of-lib-licenses.txt
--
Eric Evans
eevans@rackspace.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>
> > From: ant elder
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
> > > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
> > >>
> > >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> > >> * 0 votes: 0
> > >> * -1 votes: 0
> > >>
> > >> The vote passes.
> > >
> > > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> > > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> > > the LICENSE file.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> > > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> > >
> >
> > Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> > done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> > need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> > license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> > party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> > the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
>
> I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
> the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
> is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
> the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
> affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed
> by the cassandra candidate.
The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt
in its META-INF dir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: ant elder <an...@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
> > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
> >>
> >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
> >>
> >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> >> * 0 votes: 0
> >> * -1 votes: 0
> >>
> >> The vote passes.
> >
> > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> > the LICENSE file.
> >
> > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> >
>
> Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed
by the cassandra candidate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: ant elder <an...@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote:
> > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote:
> >>
> >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
> >>
> >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> >> * 0 votes: 0
> >> * -1 votes: 0
> >>
> >> The vote passes.
> >
> > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> > the LICENSE file.
> >
> > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> >
>
> Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in
the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component
is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under
the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly
affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed
by the cassandra candidate.
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:53 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/08/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
>> >>
>> >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
>> >> * 0 votes: 0
>> >> * -1 votes: 0
>> >>
>> >> The vote passes.
>> >
>> > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
>> > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
>> > the LICENSE file.
>> >
>> > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
>> > libraries, apart from Groovy.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
>> done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
>> need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
>> license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
>> party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
>> the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
>
> No, it doesn't exactly say that.
> The way I read it currently, the BSD notice needs to go into the
> NOTICE or LICENSE file, not a license file.
> Besides, the JIRA is still open.
>
> Also not resolved is the fact that the main LICENSE file neither
> includes nor has pointers to the other licenses.
>
It looks like this vote is done so i'll start a new thread on general@
about this.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:53 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/08/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
>> >>
>> >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
>> >> * 0 votes: 0
>> >> * -1 votes: 0
>> >>
>> >> The vote passes.
>> >
>> > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
>> > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
>> > the LICENSE file.
>> >
>> > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
>> > libraries, apart from Groovy.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
>> done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
>> need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
>> license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
>> party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
>> the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
>
> No, it doesn't exactly say that.
> The way I read it currently, the BSD notice needs to go into the
> NOTICE or LICENSE file, not a license file.
> Besides, the JIRA is still open.
>
> Also not resolved is the fact that the main LICENSE file neither
> includes nor has pointers to the other licenses.
>
It looks like this vote is done so i'll start a new thread on general@
about this.
...ant
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18/08/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
> >>
> >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> >> * 0 votes: 0
> >> * -1 votes: 0
> >>
> >> The vote passes.
> >
> > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> > the LICENSE file.
> >
> > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> >
>
>
> Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
No, it doesn't exactly say that.
The way I read it currently, the BSD notice needs to go into the
NOTICE or LICENSE file, not a license file.
Besides, the JIRA is still open.
Also not resolved is the fact that the main LICENSE file neither
includes nor has pointers to the other licenses.
> ...ant
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18/08/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The vote is now closed with the following results:
> >>
> >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> >> * 0 votes: 0
> >> * -1 votes: 0
> >>
> >> The vote passes.
> >
> > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> > the LICENSE file.
> >
> > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> > libraries, apart from Groovy.
> >
>
>
> Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
> done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
> need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
> license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
> party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
> the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
No, it doesn't exactly say that.
The way I read it currently, the BSD notice needs to go into the
NOTICE or LICENSE file, not a license file.
Besides, the JIRA is still open.
Also not resolved is the fact that the main LICENSE file neither
includes nor has pointers to the other licenses.
> ...ant
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>>
>> The vote is now closed with the following results:
>>
>> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
>> * 0 votes: 0
>> * -1 votes: 0
>>
>> The vote passes.
>
> I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> the LICENSE file.
>
> Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> libraries, apart from Groovy.
>
Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:01 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>>
>> The vote is now closed with the following results:
>>
>> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
>> * 0 votes: 0
>> * -1 votes: 0
>>
>> The vote passes.
I was surprised to read this, as I noticed a discussion about the
release on the general@i.a.o list
And Sebb's mail pretty much indicates there are (still) some issues
-matthias
>
> I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> the LICENSE file.
>
> Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> libraries, apart from Groovy.
>
>> Thanks everyone.
>>
>> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 15:08 -0500, Eric Evans wrote:
>> > The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
>> > Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
>> > Incubator PMC for this release.
>> >
>> > Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
>> > structured key-value store.
>> >
>> > Podling Vote thread:
>> > http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
>> > 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
>> > SVN Tag:
>> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
>> > Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
>> > Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eric Evans
>> eevans@rackspace.com
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>>
>> The vote is now closed with the following results:
>>
>> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
>> * 0 votes: 0
>> * -1 votes: 0
>>
>> The vote passes.
>
> I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> the LICENSE file.
>
> Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> libraries, apart from Groovy.
>
Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and
done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't
need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate
license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd
party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example
the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
...ant
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:01 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>>
>> The vote is now closed with the following results:
>>
>> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
>> * 0 votes: 0
>> * -1 votes: 0
>>
>> The vote passes.
I was surprised to read this, as I noticed a discussion about the
release on the general@i.a.o list
And Sebb's mail pretty much indicates there are (still) some issues
-matthias
>
> I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
> in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
> the LICENSE file.
>
> Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
> libraries, apart from Groovy.
>
>> Thanks everyone.
>>
>> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 15:08 -0500, Eric Evans wrote:
>> > The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
>> > Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
>> > Incubator PMC for this release.
>> >
>> > Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
>> > structured key-value store.
>> >
>> > Podling Vote thread:
>> > http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
>> > 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
>> > SVN Tag:
>> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
>> > Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
>> > Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eric Evans
>> eevans@rackspace.com
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>
> The vote is now closed with the following results:
>
> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> * 0 votes: 0
> * -1 votes: 0
>
> The vote passes.
I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
the LICENSE file.
Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
libraries, apart from Groovy.
> Thanks everyone.
>
> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 15:08 -0500, Eric Evans wrote:
> > The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
> > Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
> > Incubator PMC for this release.
> >
> > Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
> > structured key-value store.
> >
> > Podling Vote thread:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
> > 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
> > SVN Tag:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
> > Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
> > Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
>
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eevans@rackspace.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>
> The vote is now closed with the following results:
>
> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
> * 0 votes: 0
> * -1 votes: 0
>
> The vote passes.
I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries
in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in
the LICENSE file.
Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party
libraries, apart from Groovy.
> Thanks everyone.
>
> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 15:08 -0500, Eric Evans wrote:
> > The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
> > Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
> > Incubator PMC for this release.
> >
> > Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
> > structured key-value store.
> >
> > Podling Vote thread:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
> > 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
> > SVN Tag:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
> > Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
> > Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
>
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eevans@rackspace.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
[VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com>.
The vote is now closed with the following results:
* +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
* 0 votes: 0
* -1 votes: 0
The vote passes.
Thanks everyone.
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 15:08 -0500, Eric Evans wrote:
> The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
> Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
> Incubator PMC for this release.
>
> Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
> structured key-value store.
>
> Podling Vote thread:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
> 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
> SVN Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
> Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
> Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
--
Eric Evans
eevans@rackspace.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
+1 (binding)
I followed the thread and the provided stuff seems to be fine.
-M
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Eric Evans<ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
> Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
> Incubator PMC for this release.
>
> Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
> structured key-value store.
>
> Podling Vote thread:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
> 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
> SVN Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
> Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
> Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eevans@rackspace.com
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 14/08/2009, Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
> Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
> Incubator PMC for this release.
>
> Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
> structured key-value store.
>
> Podling Vote thread:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
> 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
No zip archives.
> SVN Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
Lots of missing SVN properties, see CASSANDRA-368
The NOTICE file should not contain the line
"Developers and Contributors are listed in the project POM file"
It only mentions Groovy, yet the binary archive contains several other jars:
antlr-3.1.3.jar
apache-cassandra-incubating-0.4.0-beta1.jar
clhm-20090629.jar
commons-cli-1.1.jar
commons-collections-3.2.1.jar
commons-javaflow-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
commons-lang-2.4.jar
google-collect-1.0-rc1.jar
groovy-1.5.6.jar
high-scale-lib.jar
jline-0.9.94.jar
junit-4.6.jar
libthrift.jar
log4j-1.2.15.jar
The commons jars are OK, but surely the others need mentioning?
Is JUnit needed at run-time? If not, don't include it.
The different license files all need to be included in the top-level
LICENSE.txt file
No need to mention commons or other ASF jars, but the others should be
mentioned, e.g. add at the end:
x,y, and z are licensed under the AL 2.0, see above.
The license for X is here:
[Include license text]
Etc.
> Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
> Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eevans@rackspace.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
[VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Eric Evans <ee...@rackspace.com>.
The vote is now closed with the following results:
* +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman)
* 0 votes: 0
* -1 votes: 0
The vote passes.
Thanks everyone.
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 15:08 -0500, Eric Evans wrote:
> The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
> Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
> Incubator PMC for this release.
>
> Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
> structured key-value store.
>
> Podling Vote thread:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
> 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
> SVN Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
> Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
> Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
--
Eric Evans
eevans@rackspace.com
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
+1 (binding)
I followed the thread and the provided stuff seems to be fine.
-M
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Eric Evans<ee...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
> Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the
> Incubator PMC for this release.
>
> Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
> structured key-value store.
>
> Podling Vote thread:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html
> 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
> SVN Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1
> Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
> Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eevans@rackspace.com
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf