You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@syncope.apache.org by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org> on 2012/05/11 17:26:02 UTC
[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 5th attempt
Hi all,
after 72 hours, the vote for Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating [1] *passes*
with 5 PPMC votes.
+1 (PPMC / binding)
* Francescp Chicchiriccò
* Massimiliano Perrone
* Fabio Martelli
* Simone Tripodi
* Colm O hEigeartaigh
0
<none>
-1
<none>
Thanks to everyone participating.
I will now submit the release for voting on the general@incubator ML.
Have a nice week-end.
[1]
http://syncope-dev.1063484.n5.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-Syncope-1-0-0-RC1-incubating-5th-attempt-tt5694411.html
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Apache Cocoon PMC and Apache Syncope PPMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 5th attempt
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 5/11/12 5:26 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
> Hi all,
> after 72 hours, the vote for Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating [1] *passes*
> with 5 PPMC votes.
>
> +1 (PPMC / binding)
> * Francescp Chicchiriccò
> * Massimiliano Perrone
> * Fabio Martelli
> * Simone Tripodi
> * Colm O hEigeartaigh
Hi guys,
sorry, I haven't voted this release, lack of time and some familly
situation to deal with.
The vote is currently running on general@incubator.a.o, I'll try to
check it, but not sure I'll find the time for that in the next few days.
Mentors, we need 3 +1 on general@incubator.a.o, that would be great if
we get them this week. So far, the team, and mostly Francesco who was
the one who cut the releases, have done an incredible good job so far,
it would be a good reward to get it accepted !
Many thinks and sorry for the latency...
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: NOTICE & LICENSE files content...
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
+1 makes sense to me.
Colm.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 5/21/12 9:53 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
>>
>> On 21/05/2012 07:33, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> just to inform you that some heavy discussions are going on about what
>>> those files should contain and what a binary distribution should contain.
>>> I'm not sure we will have a clear decision made this week, but at least,
>>> some opinion are expressed.
>>>
>>> This will slow down the 1.0.0-RC1 vote from incubator, but still this is
>>> interesting in the long run.
>>>
>>> I'll keep you informed.
>>>
>>> In the mean time, keep going the good work!
>>>
>>
>> Emmanuel,
>> what if we just include all transitive dependencies in L&N:
>>
>> org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
>> org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
>> xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
>> xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
>> aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
>> asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
>> antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
>> dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
>> joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
>>
>> with option to remove all these above in case the ongoing legal discussion
>> states so?
>
>
> AFAIU, there are two things :
> - sources distribution N&L files should only contain licenses of elements we
> include. If we have copied some part of 3rd party source into Syncope, then
> it should be present. But if we simply use some 3rd party tools, then we are
> not required to add them into the N&L files. For generated sources files
> (ie, antlr), then we should consider that we must add the references to antr
> into the N&L files
> - binary distribution N&L files (ie, war files) should contain the N&L for
> 3rd party lib we include into them.
> - I'm not 100% sure that we should unzip all the added libs to get all the
> licenses into the bin N&L files. To me, this is spurious, as far as we
> distribute bins for convenience. It's up to the user to understand what they
> are doing. Enough to say we have included lib for X, Y or Z.
>
> So, again, AFAIU, we should produce 2 different N&L files : the first one
> for the source distribution, contaning very few elements, and the second one
> included into the war.
>
> Is anyone agrees with that ?
>>
>>
>> In this way we could finally cur our first release, at least...
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
Re: NOTICE & LICENSE files content...
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 5/24/12 8:44 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
> On 23/05/2012 23:31, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> Le 5/23/12 10:40 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
>>> On 22/05/2012 23:25, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>> HI all guys,
>>>>
>>>> and apologize once again for the lack of participation in the last
>>>> month, I've been really busy :S
>>>>
>>>>> LICENSE-sources / NOTICE-sources
>>>>> These files will be included in *sources.jar, *javadoc.jar and
>>>>> *sources.tar.gz / *sources.zip
>>>>> These files are the default ones as inherited by Apache parent POM.
>>>>> (Side note: we can do so because we don't include source code from
>>>>> other
>>>>> projects nor generate sources via, for example, ANTlr, nor -
>>>>> finally - use
>>>>> 3rd party CSS for styling our javadocs)
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>> LICENSE and NOTICE
>>>>> These files will be included in all binary artifacts *war,
>>>> +1 for WARs,
>>>>
>>>>> *jar and
>>>>> *classes.jar
>>>> Why do you think it is needed in ALL binary artifacts? While the WAR
>>>> *redistributes* 3rd parties, jars don't. Maven is just one tool that
>>>> allows resolving the dependencies but it doesn't mean that our jar is
>>>> shipped with the dependencies.
>>> Simone,
>>> right before giving up in trying to understand how this diabolic L&N
>>> mechanism is working, I think I've understood your point here and I
>>> agree.
>>>
>>> Hence, I've just committed (r1341785) the necessary modifications to
>>> implement L&N management as you suggest above.
>>> I've also added a README for this purpose [1].
>>>
>>> Does anyone else see something wrong? Can I start the 6th RC1 attempt?
>>
>> Jus wondering how AspectJ (a bin dependency included in the war) fits
>> wrt http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b ? Same for
>> ConnId, and H2 database.
>
> Emmanuel,
> I don't understand; as reported by [1] and [2]:
> * AspectJ is EPL 1.0
> * ConnId is CDDL 1.0
> * H2 is EPL 1.0
>
> Both EPL 1.0 and CDDL 1.0 fall in the category B according to the link
> you've provided above; this category's description says
>
> Software under the following licenses may be included in binary form
> within an Apache product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled.
>
> I believe we are fine in this respect, no?
I was refering to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
page, when http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories
is clearer :
As far as a EPL 1.0/MPL 1.1 3rd party components are included as binary,
I think we are fine.
So my +1 for a 6th attempt :)
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: NOTICE & LICENSE files content...
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 23/05/2012 23:31, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Le 5/23/12 10:40 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
>> On 22/05/2012 23:25, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>> HI all guys,
>>>
>>> and apologize once again for the lack of participation in the last
>>> month, I've been really busy :S
>>>
>>>> LICENSE-sources / NOTICE-sources
>>>> These files will be included in *sources.jar, *javadoc.jar and
>>>> *sources.tar.gz / *sources.zip
>>>> These files are the default ones as inherited by Apache parent POM.
>>>> (Side note: we can do so because we don't include source code from
>>>> other
>>>> projects nor generate sources via, for example, ANTlr, nor -
>>>> finally - use
>>>> 3rd party CSS for styling our javadocs)
>>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> LICENSE and NOTICE
>>>> These files will be included in all binary artifacts *war,
>>> +1 for WARs,
>>>
>>>> *jar and
>>>> *classes.jar
>>> Why do you think it is needed in ALL binary artifacts? While the WAR
>>> *redistributes* 3rd parties, jars don't. Maven is just one tool that
>>> allows resolving the dependencies but it doesn't mean that our jar is
>>> shipped with the dependencies.
>> Simone,
>> right before giving up in trying to understand how this diabolic L&N
>> mechanism is working, I think I've understood your point here and I
>> agree.
>>
>> Hence, I've just committed (r1341785) the necessary modifications to
>> implement L&N management as you suggest above.
>> I've also added a README for this purpose [1].
>>
>> Does anyone else see something wrong? Can I start the 6th RC1 attempt?
>
> Jus wondering how AspectJ (a bin dependency included in the war) fits
> wrt http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b ? Same for
> ConnId, and H2 database.
Emmanuel,
I don't understand; as reported by [1] and [2]:
* AspectJ is EPL 1.0
* ConnId is CDDL 1.0
* H2 is EPL 1.0
Both EPL 1.0 and CDDL 1.0 fall in the category B according to the link
you've provided above; this category's description says
Software under the following licenses may be included in binary form
within an Apache product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled.
I believe we are fine in this respect, no?
Regards.
[1]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/syncope/trunk/legal_ext/LICENSE
[2]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/syncope/trunk/legal_ext/NOTICE
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Apache Cocoon PMC and Apache Syncope PPMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: NOTICE & LICENSE files content...
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 5/23/12 10:40 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
> On 22/05/2012 23:25, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> HI all guys,
>>
>> and apologize once again for the lack of participation in the last
>> month, I've been really busy :S
>>
>>> LICENSE-sources / NOTICE-sources
>>> These files will be included in *sources.jar, *javadoc.jar and
>>> *sources.tar.gz / *sources.zip
>>> These files are the default ones as inherited by Apache parent POM.
>>> (Side note: we can do so because we don't include source code from other
>>> projects nor generate sources via, for example, ANTlr, nor - finally - use
>>> 3rd party CSS for styling our javadocs)
>>>
>> +1
>>
>>> LICENSE and NOTICE
>>> These files will be included in all binary artifacts *war,
>> +1 for WARs,
>>
>>> *jar and
>>> *classes.jar
>> Why do you think it is needed in ALL binary artifacts? While the WAR
>> *redistributes* 3rd parties, jars don't. Maven is just one tool that
>> allows resolving the dependencies but it doesn't mean that our jar is
>> shipped with the dependencies.
> Simone,
> right before giving up in trying to understand how this diabolic L&N
> mechanism is working, I think I've understood your point here and I agree.
>
> Hence, I've just committed (r1341785) the necessary modifications to
> implement L&N management as you suggest above.
> I've also added a README for this purpose [1].
>
> Does anyone else see something wrong? Can I start the 6th RC1 attempt?
Jus wondering how AspectJ (a bin dependency included in the war) fits
wrt http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b ? Same for
ConnId, and H2 database.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: NOTICE & LICENSE files content...
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 22/05/2012 23:25, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> HI all guys,
>
> and apologize once again for the lack of participation in the last
> month, I've been really busy :S
>
>> LICENSE-sources / NOTICE-sources
>> These files will be included in *sources.jar, *javadoc.jar and
>> *sources.tar.gz / *sources.zip
>> These files are the default ones as inherited by Apache parent POM.
>> (Side note: we can do so because we don't include source code from other
>> projects nor generate sources via, for example, ANTlr, nor - finally - use
>> 3rd party CSS for styling our javadocs)
>>
> +1
>
>> LICENSE and NOTICE
>> These files will be included in all binary artifacts *war,
> +1 for WARs,
>
>> *jar and
>> *classes.jar
> Why do you think it is needed in ALL binary artifacts? While the WAR
> *redistributes* 3rd parties, jars don't. Maven is just one tool that
> allows resolving the dependencies but it doesn't mean that our jar is
> shipped with the dependencies.
Simone,
right before giving up in trying to understand how this diabolic L&N
mechanism is working, I think I've understood your point here and I agree.
Hence, I've just committed (r1341785) the necessary modifications to
implement L&N management as you suggest above.
I've also added a README for this purpose [1].
Does anyone else see something wrong? Can I start the 6th RC1 attempt?
Regards.
[1]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/syncope/trunk/legal_ext/README
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 22/05/2012 09:44, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>> On 21/05/2012 18:20, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>>> Le 5/21/12 9:53 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
>>>>> On 21/05/2012 07:33, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> just to inform you that some heavy discussions are going on about what
>>>>>> those files should contain and what a binary distribution should contain.
>>>>>> I'm not sure we will have a clear decision made this week, but at least,
>>>>>> some opinion are expressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This will slow down the 1.0.0-RC1 vote from incubator, but still this
>>>>>> is interesting in the long run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll keep you informed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the mean time, keep going the good work!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Emmanuel,
>>>>> what if we just include all transitive dependencies in L&N:
>>>>>
>>>>> org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
>>>>> org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
>>>>> xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
>>>>> xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
>>>>> aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
>>>>> asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
>>>>> antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
>>>>> dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
>>>>> joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
>>>>>
>>>>> with option to remove all these above in case the ongoing legal
>>>>> discussion states so?
>>>>
>>>> AFAIU, there are two things :
>>>> - sources distribution N&L files should only contain licenses of elements
>>>> we include. If we have copied some part of 3rd party source into Syncope,
>>>> then it should be present. But if we simply use some 3rd party tools, then
>>>> we are not required to add them into the N&L files. For generated sources
>>>> files (ie, antlr), then we should consider that we must add the references
>>>> to antr into the N&L files
>>>> - binary distribution N&L files (ie, war files) should contain the N&L
>>>> for 3rd party lib we include into them.
>>>> - I'm not 100% sure that we should unzip all the added libs to get all
>>>> the licenses into the bin N&L files. To me, this is spurious, as far as we
>>>> distribute bins for convenience. It's up to the user to understand what they
>>>> are doing. Enough to say we have included lib for X, Y or Z.
>>>>
>>>> So, again, AFAIU, we should produce 2 different N&L files : the first one
>>>> for the source distribution, contaning very few elements, and the second one
>>>> included into the war.
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone agrees with that ?
>>
>> After a nice skype call with Emmanuel, here it goes how things *should* be:
>>
>> LICENSE-sources / NOTICE-sources
>> These files will be included in *sources.jar, *javadoc.jar and
>> *sources.tar.gz / *sources.zip
>> These files are the default ones as inherited by Apache parent POM.
>> (Side note: we can do so because we don't include source code from other
>> projects nor generate sources via, for example, ANTlr, nor - finally - use
>> 3rd party CSS for styling our javadocs)
>>
>> LICENSE and NOTICE
>> These files will be included in all binary artifacts *war, *jar and
>> *classes.jar
>> These files are the ones currently in SVN + transitive dependencies, i.e.
>>
>>
>> org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
>> org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
>> xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
>> xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
>> aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
>> asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
>> antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
>> dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
>> joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
>>
>> I'll try to implement this ASAP and then start another release attempt
>> (after canceling the current one at general@incubator).
>>
>>
>> Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Apache Cocoon PMC and Apache Syncope PPMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: NOTICE & LICENSE files content...
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
HI all guys,
and apologize once again for the lack of participation in the last
month, I've been really busy :S
> LICENSE-sources / NOTICE-sources
> These files will be included in *sources.jar, *javadoc.jar and
> *sources.tar.gz / *sources.zip
> These files are the default ones as inherited by Apache parent POM.
> (Side note: we can do so because we don't include source code from other
> projects nor generate sources via, for example, ANTlr, nor - finally - use
> 3rd party CSS for styling our javadocs)
>
+1
> LICENSE and NOTICE
> These files will be included in all binary artifacts *war,
+1 for WARs,
> *jar and
> *classes.jar
Why do you think it is needed in ALL binary artifacts? While the WAR
*redistributes* 3rd parties, jars don't. Maven is just one tool that
allows resolving the dependencies but it doesn't mean that our jar is
shipped with the dependencies.
TIA and best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
<il...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 22/05/2012 09:44, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>
>> On 21/05/2012 18:20, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 5/21/12 9:53 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> On 21/05/2012 07:33, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> just to inform you that some heavy discussions are going on about what
>>>>> those files should contain and what a binary distribution should contain.
>>>>> I'm not sure we will have a clear decision made this week, but at least,
>>>>> some opinion are expressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will slow down the 1.0.0-RC1 vote from incubator, but still this
>>>>> is interesting in the long run.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll keep you informed.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the mean time, keep going the good work!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Emmanuel,
>>>> what if we just include all transitive dependencies in L&N:
>>>>
>>>> org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
>>>> org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
>>>> xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
>>>> xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
>>>> aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
>>>> asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
>>>> antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
>>>> dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
>>>> joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
>>>>
>>>> with option to remove all these above in case the ongoing legal
>>>> discussion states so?
>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIU, there are two things :
>>> - sources distribution N&L files should only contain licenses of elements
>>> we include. If we have copied some part of 3rd party source into Syncope,
>>> then it should be present. But if we simply use some 3rd party tools, then
>>> we are not required to add them into the N&L files. For generated sources
>>> files (ie, antlr), then we should consider that we must add the references
>>> to antr into the N&L files
>>> - binary distribution N&L files (ie, war files) should contain the N&L
>>> for 3rd party lib we include into them.
>>> - I'm not 100% sure that we should unzip all the added libs to get all
>>> the licenses into the bin N&L files. To me, this is spurious, as far as we
>>> distribute bins for convenience. It's up to the user to understand what they
>>> are doing. Enough to say we have included lib for X, Y or Z.
>>>
>>> So, again, AFAIU, we should produce 2 different N&L files : the first one
>>> for the source distribution, contaning very few elements, and the second one
>>> included into the war.
>>>
>>> Is anyone agrees with that ?
>
>
> After a nice skype call with Emmanuel, here it goes how things *should* be:
>
> LICENSE-sources / NOTICE-sources
> These files will be included in *sources.jar, *javadoc.jar and
> *sources.tar.gz / *sources.zip
> These files are the default ones as inherited by Apache parent POM.
> (Side note: we can do so because we don't include source code from other
> projects nor generate sources via, for example, ANTlr, nor - finally - use
> 3rd party CSS for styling our javadocs)
>
> LICENSE and NOTICE
> These files will be included in all binary artifacts *war, *jar and
> *classes.jar
> These files are the ones currently in SVN + transitive dependencies, i.e.
>
>
> org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
> org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
> xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
> xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
> aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
> asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
> antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
> dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
> joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
>
> I'll try to implement this ASAP and then start another release attempt
> (after canceling the current one at general@incubator).
>
>
> Regards.
>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> Apache Cocoon PMC and Apache Syncope PPMC Member
> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>
Re: NOTICE & LICENSE files content...
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 5/22/12 3:47 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
> On 22/05/2012 09:44, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>> On 21/05/2012 18:20, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>> Le 5/21/12 9:53 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
>>>> On 21/05/2012 07:33, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> just to inform you that some heavy discussions are going on about
>>>>> what those files should contain and what a binary distribution
>>>>> should contain. I'm not sure we will have a clear decision made
>>>>> this week, but at least, some opinion are expressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will slow down the 1.0.0-RC1 vote from incubator, but still
>>>>> this is interesting in the long run.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll keep you informed.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the mean time, keep going the good work!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Emmanuel,
>>>> what if we just include all transitive dependencies in L&N:
>>>>
>>>> org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
>>>> org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
>>>> xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
>>>> xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
>>>> aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
>>>> asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
>>>> antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
>>>> dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
>>>> joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
>>>>
>>>> with option to remove all these above in case the ongoing legal
>>>> discussion states so?
>>>
>>> AFAIU, there are two things :
>>> - sources distribution N&L files should only contain licenses of
>>> elements we include. If we have copied some part of 3rd party source
>>> into Syncope, then it should be present. But if we simply use some
>>> 3rd party tools, then we are not required to add them into the N&L
>>> files. For generated sources files (ie, antlr), then we should
>>> consider that we must add the references to antr into the N&L files
>>> - binary distribution N&L files (ie, war files) should contain the
>>> N&L for 3rd party lib we include into them.
>>> - I'm not 100% sure that we should unzip all the added libs to get
>>> all the licenses into the bin N&L files. To me, this is spurious, as
>>> far as we distribute bins for convenience. It's up to the user to
>>> understand what they are doing. Enough to say we have included lib
>>> for X, Y or Z.
>>>
>>> So, again, AFAIU, we should produce 2 different N&L files : the
>>> first one for the source distribution, contaning very few elements,
>>> and the second one included into the war.
>>>
>>> Is anyone agrees with that ?
>
> After a nice skype call with Emmanuel, here it goes how things
> *should* be:
>
> LICENSE-sources / NOTICE-sources
> These files will be included in *sources.jar, *javadoc.jar and
> *sources.tar.gz / *sources.zip
> These files are the default ones as inherited by Apache parent POM.
> (Side note: we can do so because we don't include source code from
> other projects nor generate sources via, for example, ANTlr, nor -
> finally - use 3rd party CSS for styling our javadocs)
>
> LICENSE and NOTICE
> These files will be included in all binary artifacts *war, *jar and
> *classes.jar
> These files are the ones currently in SVN + transitive dependencies, i.e.
>
> org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
> org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
> xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
> xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
> aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
> asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
> antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
> dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
> joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
>
> I'll try to implement this ASAP and then start another release attempt
> (after canceling the current one at general@incubator).
I hope that's ok ! :)
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: NOTICE & LICENSE files content...
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 22/05/2012 09:44, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
> On 21/05/2012 18:20, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> Le 5/21/12 9:53 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
>>> On 21/05/2012 07:33, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> just to inform you that some heavy discussions are going on about
>>>> what those files should contain and what a binary distribution
>>>> should contain. I'm not sure we will have a clear decision made
>>>> this week, but at least, some opinion are expressed.
>>>>
>>>> This will slow down the 1.0.0-RC1 vote from incubator, but still
>>>> this is interesting in the long run.
>>>>
>>>> I'll keep you informed.
>>>>
>>>> In the mean time, keep going the good work!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Emmanuel,
>>> what if we just include all transitive dependencies in L&N:
>>>
>>> org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
>>> org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
>>> xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
>>> xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
>>> aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
>>> asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
>>> antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
>>> dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
>>> joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
>>>
>>> with option to remove all these above in case the ongoing legal
>>> discussion states so?
>>
>> AFAIU, there are two things :
>> - sources distribution N&L files should only contain licenses of
>> elements we include. If we have copied some part of 3rd party source
>> into Syncope, then it should be present. But if we simply use some
>> 3rd party tools, then we are not required to add them into the N&L
>> files. For generated sources files (ie, antlr), then we should
>> consider that we must add the references to antr into the N&L files
>> - binary distribution N&L files (ie, war files) should contain the
>> N&L for 3rd party lib we include into them.
>> - I'm not 100% sure that we should unzip all the added libs to get
>> all the licenses into the bin N&L files. To me, this is spurious, as
>> far as we distribute bins for convenience. It's up to the user to
>> understand what they are doing. Enough to say we have included lib
>> for X, Y or Z.
>>
>> So, again, AFAIU, we should produce 2 different N&L files : the first
>> one for the source distribution, contaning very few elements, and the
>> second one included into the war.
>>
>> Is anyone agrees with that ?
After a nice skype call with Emmanuel, here it goes how things *should* be:
LICENSE-sources / NOTICE-sources
These files will be included in *sources.jar, *javadoc.jar and
*sources.tar.gz / *sources.zip
These files are the default ones as inherited by Apache parent POM.
(Side note: we can do so because we don't include source code from other
projects nor generate sources via, for example, ANTlr, nor - finally -
use 3rd party CSS for styling our javadocs)
LICENSE and NOTICE
These files will be included in all binary artifacts *war, *jar and
*classes.jar
These files are the ones currently in SVN + transitive dependencies, i.e.
org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
I'll try to implement this ASAP and then start another release attempt
(after canceling the current one at general@incubator).
Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Apache Cocoon PMC and Apache Syncope PPMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: NOTICE & LICENSE files content...
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 21/05/2012 18:20, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Le 5/21/12 9:53 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
>> On 21/05/2012 07:33, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> just to inform you that some heavy discussions are going on about
>>> what those files should contain and what a binary distribution
>>> should contain. I'm not sure we will have a clear decision made this
>>> week, but at least, some opinion are expressed.
>>>
>>> This will slow down the 1.0.0-RC1 vote from incubator, but still
>>> this is interesting in the long run.
>>>
>>> I'll keep you informed.
>>>
>>> In the mean time, keep going the good work!
>>>
>>
>> Emmanuel,
>> what if we just include all transitive dependencies in L&N:
>>
>> org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
>> org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
>> xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
>> xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
>> aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
>> asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
>> antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
>> dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
>> joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
>>
>> with option to remove all these above in case the ongoing legal
>> discussion states so?
>
> AFAIU, there are two things :
> - sources distribution N&L files should only contain licenses of
> elements we include. If we have copied some part of 3rd party source
> into Syncope, then it should be present. But if we simply use some 3rd
> party tools, then we are not required to add them into the N&L files.
> For generated sources files (ie, antlr), then we should consider that
> we must add the references to antr into the N&L files
> - binary distribution N&L files (ie, war files) should contain the N&L
> for 3rd party lib we include into them.
> - I'm not 100% sure that we should unzip all the added libs to get all
> the licenses into the bin N&L files. To me, this is spurious, as far
> as we distribute bins for convenience. It's up to the user to
> understand what they are doing. Enough to say we have included lib for
> X, Y or Z.
>
> So, again, AFAIU, we should produce 2 different N&L files : the first
> one for the source distribution, contaning very few elements, and the
> second one included into the war.
>
> Is anyone agrees with that ?
Ok, does this mean that we will have
LICENSE / NOTICE
These files will be included in *classes.jar *sources.jar, *javadoc.jar
and *sources.tar.gz / *sources.zip
These files are the ones currently in SVN.
LICENSE-transitive and NOTICE-transitive
These files will be included in *war
These files' content is the same as above + transitive dependencies, i.e.
org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
If this is fine, and you believe we had good chance to not get stopped
at general@incubator, I'll start immediately implementing and the
release process.
Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Apache Cocoon PMC and Apache Syncope PPMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: NOTICE & LICENSE files content...
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 5/21/12 9:53 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
> On 21/05/2012 07:33, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> just to inform you that some heavy discussions are going on about
>> what those files should contain and what a binary distribution should
>> contain. I'm not sure we will have a clear decision made this week,
>> but at least, some opinion are expressed.
>>
>> This will slow down the 1.0.0-RC1 vote from incubator, but still this
>> is interesting in the long run.
>>
>> I'll keep you informed.
>>
>> In the mean time, keep going the good work!
>>
>
> Emmanuel,
> what if we just include all transitive dependencies in L&N:
>
> org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
> org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
> xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
> xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
> aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
> asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
> antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
> dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
> joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
>
> with option to remove all these above in case the ongoing legal
> discussion states so?
AFAIU, there are two things :
- sources distribution N&L files should only contain licenses of
elements we include. If we have copied some part of 3rd party source
into Syncope, then it should be present. But if we simply use some 3rd
party tools, then we are not required to add them into the N&L files.
For generated sources files (ie, antlr), then we should consider that we
must add the references to antr into the N&L files
- binary distribution N&L files (ie, war files) should contain the N&L
for 3rd party lib we include into them.
- I'm not 100% sure that we should unzip all the added libs to get all
the licenses into the bin N&L files. To me, this is spurious, as far as
we distribute bins for convenience. It's up to the user to understand
what they are doing. Enough to say we have included lib for X, Y or Z.
So, again, AFAIU, we should produce 2 different N&L files : the first
one for the source distribution, contaning very few elements, and the
second one included into the war.
Is anyone agrees with that ?
>
> In this way we could finally cur our first release, at least...
>
> Regards.
>
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: NOTICE & LICENSE files content...
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 21/05/2012 07:33, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> just to inform you that some heavy discussions are going on about what
> those files should contain and what a binary distribution should
> contain. I'm not sure we will have a clear decision made this week,
> but at least, some opinion are expressed.
>
> This will slow down the 1.0.0-RC1 vote from incubator, but still this
> is interesting in the long run.
>
> I'll keep you informed.
>
> In the mean time, keep going the good work!
>
Emmanuel,
what if we just include all transitive dependencies in L&N:
org.livetribe:livetribe-jsr223:jar:2.0.6
org.mybatis:mybatis:jar:3.0.6
xmlpull:xmlpull:jar:1.1.3.1
xpp3:xpp3_min:jar:1.1.4c / xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.4c
aopalliance:aopalliance:jar:1.0
asm:asm:jar:3.3.1
antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7
dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
joda-time:joda-time:jar:2.0
with option to remove all these above in case the ongoing legal
discussion states so?
In this way we could finally cur our first release, at least...
Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Apache Cocoon PMC and Apache Syncope PPMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
NOTICE & LICENSE files content...
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Hi guys,
just to inform you that some heavy discussions are going on about what
those files should contain and what a binary distribution should
contain. I'm not sure we will have a clear decision made this week, but
at least, some opinion are expressed.
This will slow down the 1.0.0-RC1 vote from incubator, but still this is
interesting in the long run.
I'll keep you informed.
In the mean time, keep going the good work!
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com