You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@aries.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2010/04/29 18:19:37 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate #2 CANCELLED
It might be a bit late but would you consider releasing the artifacts that don't have problems and don't depend on the jpa subproject and just redoing the jpa and the stuff that consumes it (samples I'd guess)?
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 29, 2010, at 7:01 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> Based on the response on legal-discuss I'm cancelling this vote and
> building a new release candidate.
>
> Thanks for your votes so far and patience !
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> On 28 April 2010 15:22, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I've raised it on legal-discuss. Has the following option been
>> considered to satisfy the "... and include the License file at
>> glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt.":
>>
>> Include that LICENSE.txt file separately from the project's LICENSE
>> file in a directory called glassfish/bootstrap/legal directory within
>> the jar/zip AND include the CDDL only in the project's LICENSE file
>> located at the root of the zip.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jeremy
>>
>> On 28 April 2010 14:41, Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Yep, after recent discussions about this on the Geronimo lists, we'll be
>>> updating the text in the OpenJPA licenses for our next set of release
>>> artifacts.
>>>
>>> -Donald
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/27/10 5:43 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>> On 27 April 2010 15:51, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27 April 2010 14:42, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>> I realized that I failed to review a few things. Can you give me a few hours?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sure, I was hoping to get 3 IPMC binding +1s before calling the vote.
>>>>>> We have 2 - Guillaume and you at the moment and Dims has just told me
>>>>>> he'll ping me back later today.
>>>>>
>>>>> So reviewing a Geronimo release (which had this same issue) made me come back and take a look at Aries.
>>>>>
>>>>> For dual license files like: jpa-0.1-incubating/jpa-container/src/main/resources/org/apache/aries/jpa/container/parsing/impl/persistence.xsd.rsrc
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe we should be including both licenses (as explained in the header of the files). We are currently only including the CDDL license (this may have been my mistake -- in saying the LICENSE information in the RC1 jar file was correct...). I think we should be including the full license text from https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html (i.e. both licenses), then choosing the CDDL license in the NOTICE file.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we were only including the CDDL license in the RC1 jar file, then I should have caught this last time... Apologies.
>>>>>
>>>>> If others agree, afraid we'll need to update...
>>>>
>>>> Is there a precedent for this? The recent 2.0.0 OpenJPA binary and
>>>> source zip have a LICENSE.txt with just the CDDL in it, no GPL license
>>>> text. Has this been discussed on a list somewhere - I couldn't see
>>>> anything recently on legal-discuss@ - it seems there is some
>>>> inconsistency.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --kevan
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate #2
CANCELLED
Posted by Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org>.
:-) I haven't deleted the staging repo yet. Thanks.
On 29 April 2010 17:19, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It might be a bit late but would you consider releasing the artifacts that don't have problems and don't depend on the jpa subproject and just redoing the jpa and the stuff that consumes it (samples I'd guess)?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Apr 29, 2010, at 7:01 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>
>> Based on the response on legal-discuss I'm cancelling this vote and
>> building a new release candidate.
>>
>> Thanks for your votes so far and patience !
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>> On 28 April 2010 15:22, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I've raised it on legal-discuss. Has the following option been
>>> considered to satisfy the "... and include the License file at
>>> glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt.":
>>>
>>> Include that LICENSE.txt file separately from the project's LICENSE
>>> file in a directory called glassfish/bootstrap/legal directory within
>>> the jar/zip AND include the CDDL only in the project's LICENSE file
>>> located at the root of the zip.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>> On 28 April 2010 14:41, Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Yep, after recent discussions about this on the Geronimo lists, we'll be
>>>> updating the text in the OpenJPA licenses for our next set of release
>>>> artifacts.
>>>>
>>>> -Donald
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/27/10 5:43 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>> On 27 April 2010 15:51, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27 April 2010 14:42, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>> I realized that I failed to review a few things. Can you give me a few hours?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sure, I was hoping to get 3 IPMC binding +1s before calling the vote.
>>>>>>> We have 2 - Guillaume and you at the moment and Dims has just told me
>>>>>>> he'll ping me back later today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So reviewing a Geronimo release (which had this same issue) made me come back and take a look at Aries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For dual license files like: jpa-0.1-incubating/jpa-container/src/main/resources/org/apache/aries/jpa/container/parsing/impl/persistence.xsd.rsrc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe we should be including both licenses (as explained in the header of the files). We are currently only including the CDDL license (this may have been my mistake -- in saying the LICENSE information in the RC1 jar file was correct...). I think we should be including the full license text from https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html (i.e. both licenses), then choosing the CDDL license in the NOTICE file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we were only including the CDDL license in the RC1 jar file, then I should have caught this last time... Apologies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If others agree, afraid we'll need to update...
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a precedent for this? The recent 2.0.0 OpenJPA binary and
>>>>> source zip have a LICENSE.txt with just the CDDL in it, no GPL license
>>>>> text. Has this been discussed on a list somewhere - I couldn't see
>>>>> anything recently on legal-discuss@ - it seems there is some
>>>>> inconsistency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>