Re: Please check this Jira issue conclusion

[Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>]

We've never gotten review / approval for including the docbook stuff.

I think if we include it in the distr, I think it will raise some 
discussion which might go on for a while.  Basically, several folks in 
Apache who manage "risk" would need to get comfortable with what we're 
doing.  I'm guessing it will be better for us to focus their efforts in 
reviewing our stuff on other things... :-)

Since that stuff isn't key to the framework, but is rather a tool for 
building it, I would recommend we take this out, just to cut down the 
discussion time.  We would perhaps need to include a pointer to the 
right file in SVN that says how to set up for docbook builds (which they 
have to do anyway because some things are not distributable, in any case).

I note that the current build includes the Saxon Jar, which is under the 
Mozilla Public License, which Cliff lists as ok only for "Binary" 
distributions.

Other opinions?

-Marshall

Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Marshall Schor wrote:
>   
>> Mentors - can you please look at the comment trail in this Jira issue 
>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-167) and see if you agree we 
>> can distribute the Docbook DTDs and Stylesheets under the Apache 
>> license, as part of our UIMA Source distribution?
>>     
>
> We can certainly *use* them, but as for relicensing them.. sticky.
> I'm pretty sure this should have a legal stamp on it.
>
> Cliff?
>
> (I haven't followed any discussion on legal-discuss)
>   

Re: Please check this Jira issue conclusion

[Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>]

Thilo Goetz wrote:
> Marshall Schor wrote:
>> We've never gotten review / approval for including the docbook stuff.
>>
>> I think if we include it in the distr, I think it will raise some 
>> discussion which might go on for a while.  Basically, several folks 
>> in Apache who manage "risk" would need to get comfortable with what 
>> we're doing.  I'm guessing it will be better for us to focus their 
>> efforts in reviewing our stuff on other things... :-)
>>
>> Since that stuff isn't key to the framework, but is rather a tool for 
>> building it, I would recommend we take this out, just to cut down the 
>> discussion time.  We would perhaps need to include a pointer to the 
>> right file in SVN that says how to set up for docbook builds (which 
>> they have to do anyway because some things are not distributable, in 
>> any case).
>
> +1 for taking the docbook stuff out of the distribution.  Do you want 
> me to work on that?

Yes, please.
>
>>
>> I note that the current build includes the Saxon Jar, which is under 
>> the Mozilla Public License, which Cliff lists as ok only for "Binary" 
>> distributions.
>
> Doesn't he mean, distribute in binary form only?
>

I think that is correct.

-Marshall

Re: Please check this Jira issue conclusion

[Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>]

Marshall Schor wrote:
> We've never gotten review / approval for including the docbook stuff.
> 
> I think if we include it in the distr, I think it will raise some 
> discussion which might go on for a while.  Basically, several folks in 
> Apache who manage "risk" would need to get comfortable with what we're 
> doing.  I'm guessing it will be better for us to focus their efforts in 
> reviewing our stuff on other things... :-)
> 
> Since that stuff isn't key to the framework, but is rather a tool for 
> building it, I would recommend we take this out, just to cut down the 
> discussion time.  We would perhaps need to include a pointer to the 
> right file in SVN that says how to set up for docbook builds (which they 
> have to do anyway because some things are not distributable, in any case).

+1 for taking the docbook stuff out of the distribution.  Do you want me 
to work on that?

> 
> I note that the current build includes the Saxon Jar, which is under the 
> Mozilla Public License, which Cliff lists as ok only for "Binary" 
> distributions.

Doesn't he mean, distribute in binary form only?

--Thilo