You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> on 2009/07/25 23:57:31 UTC
[math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/commons-math-2.0-RC1/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/commons-math-2.0-RC1/
Seems good to me.
Thanks Phil,
Luc
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Bill Barker <bi...@verizon.net>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Steitz" <ph...@gmail.com>
To: "Commons Developers List" <de...@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:57 PM
Subject: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/commons-math-2.0-RC1/
>
Looks good to me.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think the following addition to LICENSE.txt is appropriate:
>>>
>>> "The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
>>> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>>> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>> conditions of the following licenses."
>>>
>>> This would be appropriate if we were shipping sources from differently
>>> licensed components. What we have done - I think (IANAL) - is create
>>> *derivative works* from the original sources. Someone can correct me
>>> if I am wrong, but I don't see how that means that we now have
>>> "subcomponents" with separate license terms. Can someone explain this?
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>> I suggest the following change:
>>
>> --- LICENSE.txt (revision 798724)
>> +++ LICENSE.txt (working copy)
>> @@ -203,12 +203,12 @@
>>
>>
>>
>> -APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
>> +APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
>>
>> -The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
>> -separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>> -code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>> -conditions of the following licenses.
>> +The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>> +whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
>> +in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
>> +are reproduced below.
>>
>
> This is much better than my simple copy from the example.
> I'll check it in in a few minutes, thanks for the fix
>
Thx. I asked for guidance on this on legal-discuss. I will hold
rolling the next RC until I get a response.
Phil
> Luc
>
>
>> Phil
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>
>>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think the following addition to LICENSE.txt is appropriate:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the
>>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>>> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>>>>>>>> conditions of the following licenses."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This would be appropriate if we were shipping sources from
>>>>>>>>> differently
>>>>>>>>> licensed components. What we have done - I think (IANAL) - is
>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>> *derivative works* from the original sources. Someone can
>>>>>>>>> correct me
>>>>>>>>> if I am wrong, but I don't see how that means that we now have
>>>>>>>>> "subcomponents" with separate license terms. Can someone explain
>>>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suggest the following change:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- LICENSE.txt (revision 798724)
>>>>>>>> +++ LICENSE.txt (working copy)
>>>>>>>> @@ -203,12 +203,12 @@
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
>>>>>>>> +APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> -separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the
>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>> -code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>>>>>>> -conditions of the following licenses.
>>>>>>>> +The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>>>>> +whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
>>>>>>>> +in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
>>>>>>>> +are reproduced below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is much better than my simple copy from the example.
>>>>>>> I'll check it in in a few minutes, thanks for the fix
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got on piece of feedback from legal-discuss, which is to make explicit
>>>>>> which classes in [math] depend on which of the original sources. That
>>>>>> should be added to LICENSE.txt either at the top or in the section for
>>>>>> each original source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is already the case. In fact, in addition to the attributions
>>>>> formerly in the NOTICE file and now in the LICENSE file,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What was suggested was that in LICENSE and NOTICE files themselves, we
>>>> should specify which commons-math files depend on which original
>>>> sources. Currently, the original sources are just listed, with no
>>>> reference to the classes that are derived (in part) from them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> OK. I've added it.
>>>
>>> Luc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
> Are we ready for another RC ?
>
Yes. Testing now...
Phil
> Luc
>
>
>> Phil
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>
>>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think the following addition to LICENSE.txt is appropriate:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the
>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>>>>>>> conditions of the following licenses."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This would be appropriate if we were shipping sources from
>>>>>>>> differently
>>>>>>>> licensed components. What we have done - I think (IANAL) - is
>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>> *derivative works* from the original sources. Someone can
>>>>>>>> correct me
>>>>>>>> if I am wrong, but I don't see how that means that we now have
>>>>>>>> "subcomponents" with separate license terms. Can someone explain
>>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest the following change:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- LICENSE.txt (revision 798724)
>>>>>>> +++ LICENSE.txt (working copy)
>>>>>>> @@ -203,12 +203,12 @@
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
>>>>>>> +APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> -separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the
>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>> -code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>>>>>> -conditions of the following licenses.
>>>>>>> +The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>>>> +whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
>>>>>>> +in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
>>>>>>> +are reproduced below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is much better than my simple copy from the example.
>>>>>> I'll check it in in a few minutes, thanks for the fix
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>
>>>>> Got on piece of feedback from legal-discuss, which is to make explicit
>>>>> which classes in [math] depend on which of the original sources. That
>>>>> should be added to LICENSE.txt either at the top or in the section for
>>>>> each original source.
>>>>>
>>>> This is already the case. In fact, in addition to the attributions
>>>> formerly in the NOTICE file and now in the LICENSE file,
>>>>
>>> What was suggested was that in LICENSE and NOTICE files themselves, we
>>> should specify which commons-math files depend on which original
>>> sources. Currently, the original sources are just listed, with no
>>> reference to the classes that are derived (in part) from them.
>>>
>>
>> OK. I've added it.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
> Thanks!
Are we ready for another RC ?
Luc
>
> Phil
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>
>>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think the following addition to LICENSE.txt is appropriate:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>>>>>>> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>>>>>> conditions of the following licenses."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This would be appropriate if we were shipping sources from
>>>>>>> differently
>>>>>>> licensed components. What we have done - I think (IANAL) - is create
>>>>>>> *derivative works* from the original sources. Someone can correct me
>>>>>>> if I am wrong, but I don't see how that means that we now have
>>>>>>> "subcomponents" with separate license terms. Can someone explain
>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest the following change:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- LICENSE.txt (revision 798724)
>>>>>> +++ LICENSE.txt (working copy)
>>>>>> @@ -203,12 +203,12 @@
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
>>>>>> +APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> -separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>>>>>> -code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>>>>> -conditions of the following licenses.
>>>>>> +The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>>> +whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
>>>>>> +in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
>>>>>> +are reproduced below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is much better than my simple copy from the example.
>>>>> I'll check it in in a few minutes, thanks for the fix
>>>>>
>>>>> Luc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Got on piece of feedback from legal-discuss, which is to make explicit
>>>> which classes in [math] depend on which of the original sources. That
>>>> should be added to LICENSE.txt either at the top or in the section for
>>>> each original source.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This is already the case. In fact, in addition to the attributions
>>> formerly in the NOTICE file and now in the LICENSE file,
>>>
>> What was suggested was that in LICENSE and NOTICE files themselves, we
>> should specify which commons-math files depend on which original
>> sources. Currently, the original sources are just listed, with no
>> reference to the classes that are derived (in part) from them.
>>
>
> OK. I've added it.
>
> Luc
>
>
Thanks!
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>
>>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think the following addition to LICENSE.txt is appropriate:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>>>>>> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>>>>> conditions of the following licenses."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This would be appropriate if we were shipping sources from
>>>>>> differently
>>>>>> licensed components. What we have done - I think (IANAL) - is create
>>>>>> *derivative works* from the original sources. Someone can correct me
>>>>>> if I am wrong, but I don't see how that means that we now have
>>>>>> "subcomponents" with separate license terms. Can someone explain
>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest the following change:
>>>>>
>>>>> --- LICENSE.txt (revision 798724)
>>>>> +++ LICENSE.txt (working copy)
>>>>> @@ -203,12 +203,12 @@
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
>>>>> +APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
>>>>>
>>>>> -The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>> with
>>>>> -separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>>>>> -code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>>>> -conditions of the following licenses.
>>>>> +The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>> +whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
>>>>> +in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
>>>>> +are reproduced below.
>>>>>
>>>> This is much better than my simple copy from the example.
>>>> I'll check it in in a few minutes, thanks for the fix
>>>>
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>> Got on piece of feedback from legal-discuss, which is to make explicit
>>> which classes in [math] depend on which of the original sources. That
>>> should be added to LICENSE.txt either at the top or in the section for
>>> each original source.
>>>
>>
>> This is already the case. In fact, in addition to the attributions
>> formerly in the NOTICE file and now in the LICENSE file,
> What was suggested was that in LICENSE and NOTICE files themselves, we
> should specify which commons-math files depend on which original
> sources. Currently, the original sources are just listed, with no
> reference to the classes that are derived (in part) from them.
OK. I've added it.
Luc
>
> Phil
>> the
>> attributions were also present in the class javadocs. Here are some
>> examples:
>> http://commons.apache.org/math/apidocs/org/apache/commons/math/random/MersenneTwister.html
>>
>> http://commons.apache.org/math/apidocs/org/apache/commons/math/estimation/LevenbergMarquardtEstimator.html
>>
>> http://commons.apache.org/math/apidocs/org/apache/commons/math/ode/nonstiff/GraggBulirschStoerIntegrator.html
>>
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>
>>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think the following addition to LICENSE.txt is appropriate:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>>> with
>>>>> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>>>>> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>>>> conditions of the following licenses."
>>>>>
>>>>> This would be appropriate if we were shipping sources from differently
>>>>> licensed components. What we have done - I think (IANAL) - is create
>>>>> *derivative works* from the original sources. Someone can correct me
>>>>> if I am wrong, but I don't see how that means that we now have
>>>>> "subcomponents" with separate license terms. Can someone explain this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I suggest the following change:
>>>>
>>>> --- LICENSE.txt (revision 798724)
>>>> +++ LICENSE.txt (working copy)
>>>> @@ -203,12 +203,12 @@
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
>>>> +APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
>>>>
>>>> -The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
>>>> -separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>>>> -code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>>> -conditions of the following licenses.
>>>> +The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>> +whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
>>>> +in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
>>>> +are reproduced below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This is much better than my simple copy from the example.
>>> I'll check it in in a few minutes, thanks for the fix
>>>
>>> Luc
>>>
>>>
>> Got on piece of feedback from legal-discuss, which is to make explicit
>> which classes in [math] depend on which of the original sources. That
>> should be added to LICENSE.txt either at the top or in the section for
>> each original source.
>>
>
> This is already the case. In fact, in addition to the attributions
> formerly in the NOTICE file and now in the LICENSE file,
What was suggested was that in LICENSE and NOTICE files themselves, we
should specify which commons-math files depend on which original
sources. Currently, the original sources are just listed, with no
reference to the classes that are derived (in part) from them.
Phil
> the
> attributions were also present in the class javadocs. Here are some
> examples:
> http://commons.apache.org/math/apidocs/org/apache/commons/math/random/MersenneTwister.html
> http://commons.apache.org/math/apidocs/org/apache/commons/math/estimation/LevenbergMarquardtEstimator.html
> http://commons.apache.org/math/apidocs/org/apache/commons/math/ode/nonstiff/GraggBulirschStoerIntegrator.html
>
> Luc
>
>
>> Phil
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>
>>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think the following addition to LICENSE.txt is appropriate:
>>>>
>>>> "The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>>> with
>>>> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>>>> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>>> conditions of the following licenses."
>>>>
>>>> This would be appropriate if we were shipping sources from differently
>>>> licensed components. What we have done - I think (IANAL) - is create
>>>> *derivative works* from the original sources. Someone can correct me
>>>> if I am wrong, but I don't see how that means that we now have
>>>> "subcomponents" with separate license terms. Can someone explain this?
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>> I suggest the following change:
>>>
>>> --- LICENSE.txt (revision 798724)
>>> +++ LICENSE.txt (working copy)
>>> @@ -203,12 +203,12 @@
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
>>> +APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
>>>
>>> -The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
>>> -separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>>> -code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>> -conditions of the following licenses.
>>> +The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>>> +whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
>>> +in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
>>> +are reproduced below.
>>>
>>
>> This is much better than my simple copy from the example.
>> I'll check it in in a few minutes, thanks for the fix
>>
>> Luc
>>
> Got on piece of feedback from legal-discuss, which is to make explicit
> which classes in [math] depend on which of the original sources. That
> should be added to LICENSE.txt either at the top or in the section for
> each original source.
This is already the case. In fact, in addition to the attributions
formerly in the NOTICE file and now in the LICENSE file, the
attributions were also present in the class javadocs. Here are some
examples:
http://commons.apache.org/math/apidocs/org/apache/commons/math/random/MersenneTwister.html
http://commons.apache.org/math/apidocs/org/apache/commons/math/estimation/LevenbergMarquardtEstimator.html
http://commons.apache.org/math/apidocs/org/apache/commons/math/ode/nonstiff/GraggBulirschStoerIntegrator.html
Luc
>
> Phil
>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think the following addition to LICENSE.txt is appropriate:
>>>
>>> "The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
>>> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>>> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>>> conditions of the following licenses."
>>>
>>> This would be appropriate if we were shipping sources from differently
>>> licensed components. What we have done - I think (IANAL) - is create
>>> *derivative works* from the original sources. Someone can correct me
>>> if I am wrong, but I don't see how that means that we now have
>>> "subcomponents" with separate license terms. Can someone explain this?
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>> I suggest the following change:
>>
>> --- LICENSE.txt (revision 798724)
>> +++ LICENSE.txt (working copy)
>> @@ -203,12 +203,12 @@
>>
>>
>>
>> -APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
>> +APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
>>
>> -The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
>> -separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>> -code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>> -conditions of the following licenses.
>> +The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>> +whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
>> +in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
>> +are reproduced below.
>>
>
> This is much better than my simple copy from the example.
> I'll check it in in a few minutes, thanks for the fix
>
> Luc
>
Got on piece of feedback from legal-discuss, which is to make explicit
which classes in [math] depend on which of the original sources. That
should be added to LICENSE.txt either at the top or in the section for
each original source.
Phil
>
>> Phil
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Phil Steitz wrote:
>> I don't think the following addition to LICENSE.txt is appropriate:
>>
>> "The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
>> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>> conditions of the following licenses."
>>
>> This would be appropriate if we were shipping sources from differently
>> licensed components. What we have done - I think (IANAL) - is create
>> *derivative works* from the original sources. Someone can correct me
>> if I am wrong, but I don't see how that means that we now have
>> "subcomponents" with separate license terms. Can someone explain this?
>>
>> Phil
> I suggest the following change:
>
> --- LICENSE.txt (revision 798724)
> +++ LICENSE.txt (working copy)
> @@ -203,12 +203,12 @@
>
>
>
> -APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
> +APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
>
> -The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
> -separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
> -code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
> -conditions of the following licenses.
> +The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
> +whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
> +in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
> +are reproduced below.
This is much better than my simple copy from the example.
I'll check it in in a few minutes, thanks for the fix
Luc
>
>
> Phil
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
Phil Steitz wrote:
> I don't think the following addition to LICENSE.txt is appropriate:
>
> "The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
> conditions of the following licenses."
>
> This would be appropriate if we were shipping sources from differently
> licensed components. What we have done - I think (IANAL) - is create
> *derivative works* from the original sources. Someone can correct me
> if I am wrong, but I don't see how that means that we now have
> "subcomponents" with separate license terms. Can someone explain this?
>
> Phil
I suggest the following change:
--- LICENSE.txt (revision 798724)
+++ LICENSE.txt (working copy)
@@ -203,12 +203,12 @@
-APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
+APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
-The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
-separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
-code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
-conditions of the following licenses.
+The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
+whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
+in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
+are reproduced below.
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
I don't think the following addition to LICENSE.txt is appropriate:
"The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
conditions of the following licenses."
This would be appropriate if we were shipping sources from differently
licensed components. What we have done - I think (IANAL) - is create
*derivative works* from the original sources. Someone can correct me if
I am wrong, but I don't see how that means that we now have
"subcomponents" with separate license terms. Can someone explain this?
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
sebb a écrit :
> On 28/07/2009, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
>> sebb a écrit :
>>
>>> On 25/07/2009, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/commons-math-2.0-RC1/
>> >
>> > Sigs OK, but the MD5 and SHA1 hashes are different from usual:
>> >
>> > MD5(commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz)= 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211
>> >
>> > This complicates checking them.
>> >
>> > The normal format is:
>> >
>> > 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211 *commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz
>> >
>> > The NOTICE file still shows 2008.
>> >
>> > Also, the NOTICE file contains some 3rd party licences - these should
>> > be in the LICENSE file; NOTICE should be for attributions only.
>>
>>
>> I have looked at other commons components for an example of how to put
>> all licenses in the LICENSE file. I found none. The only components that
>> have external attributions in the NOTICE files apart from [math] are the
>> following ones:
>>
>> [vfs] states this in the NOTICE file:
>>
>> As an optional dependency it uses javamail developed by
>> SUN Microsystems
>> You can get the library and its source from
>> http://java.sun.com/products/javamail/
>> This library uses the CDDL open source license
>>
>>
>>
>> [codec] states this in the NOTICE file:
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> src/test/org/apache/commons/codec/language/DoubleMetaphoneTest.java
>> contains
>> test data from http://aspell.sourceforge.net/test/batch0.tab.
>>
>> Copyright (C) 2002 Kevin Atkinson (kevina@gnu.org). Verbatim copying
>> and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium,
>> provided this notice is preserved.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> [el] states this in the NOTICE file:
>>
>> EL-8 patch - Copyright 2004-2007 Jamie Taylor
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EL-8
>>
>>
>>
>> [compress] states this in the NOTICE file:
>>
>> Original BZip2 classes contributed by Keiron Liddle
>> <ke...@aftexsw.com>, Aftex Software to the Apache Ant project
>>
>> Original Tar classes from contributors of the Apache Ant project
>>
>> Original Zip classes from contributors of the Apache Ant project
>
> The mentions of Apache Ant are not needed.
>
>> Original CPIO classes contributed by Markus Kuss and the jRPM project
>> (jrpm.sourceforge.net)
>>
>>
>>
>> All these components put only the Apache license in the LICENSE file,
>> which seemed fair to me. The dependencies these components have fit well
>> with either no license text or a small one (a link to the license by
>> name for [vfs], a single short sentence for [codec]). This is not
>> sufficient for [math] since we have to put the text of BSD type licenses
>> for several classes, this is the reason why I put these in the NOTICE
>> file at first.
>>
>> It seems strange to me to put a single license file with both our
>> license and these external licenses. Should these really go in the
>> LICENSE file or could they be put in a separate file (OTHER-LICENSES or
>> a name like that) or in several separate files, (LICENSE-lmder,
>> LICENSE-Heirer, LICENSE-lapack ...) ?
>>
>
> See the sample license file here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
>
> "Here" is the link.
Thanks, sebb, I'll commit it in a few minutes.
Luc
>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I think this is a release blocker.
>> >
>> > The packaging of the binary archive looks wrong as well - I don't
>> > think it should contain Javadoc for the test code, nor the Cobertura
>> > reports (IIRC these have an incompatible license?). Looks like the
>> > entire site was accidentally included, as the binary archives are
>> > huge.
>> >
>> > Also a release blocker IMO.
>> >
>> > The source files use the $Date$ SVN marker, which makes it hard to
>> > compare the SVN tag with the source archive, as the date is expressed
>> > in local time. Not a release blocker, but ideally I'd like to see
>> > these removed at some point.
>> >
>> > Code builds and tests OK for me on Java 1.5 using Ant and Maven2.
>> >
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 28/07/2009, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
> sebb a écrit :
>
> > On 25/07/2009, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/commons-math-2.0-RC1/
> >
> > Sigs OK, but the MD5 and SHA1 hashes are different from usual:
> >
> > MD5(commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz)= 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211
> >
> > This complicates checking them.
> >
> > The normal format is:
> >
> > 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211 *commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz
> >
> > The NOTICE file still shows 2008.
> >
> > Also, the NOTICE file contains some 3rd party licences - these should
> > be in the LICENSE file; NOTICE should be for attributions only.
>
>
> I have looked at other commons components for an example of how to put
> all licenses in the LICENSE file. I found none. The only components that
> have external attributions in the NOTICE files apart from [math] are the
> following ones:
>
> [vfs] states this in the NOTICE file:
>
> As an optional dependency it uses javamail developed by
> SUN Microsystems
> You can get the library and its source from
> http://java.sun.com/products/javamail/
> This library uses the CDDL open source license
>
>
>
> [codec] states this in the NOTICE file:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> src/test/org/apache/commons/codec/language/DoubleMetaphoneTest.java
> contains
> test data from http://aspell.sourceforge.net/test/batch0.tab.
>
> Copyright (C) 2002 Kevin Atkinson (kevina@gnu.org). Verbatim copying
> and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium,
> provided this notice is preserved.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> [el] states this in the NOTICE file:
>
> EL-8 patch - Copyright 2004-2007 Jamie Taylor
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EL-8
>
>
>
> [compress] states this in the NOTICE file:
>
> Original BZip2 classes contributed by Keiron Liddle
> <ke...@aftexsw.com>, Aftex Software to the Apache Ant project
>
> Original Tar classes from contributors of the Apache Ant project
>
> Original Zip classes from contributors of the Apache Ant project
The mentions of Apache Ant are not needed.
> Original CPIO classes contributed by Markus Kuss and the jRPM project
> (jrpm.sourceforge.net)
>
>
>
> All these components put only the Apache license in the LICENSE file,
> which seemed fair to me. The dependencies these components have fit well
> with either no license text or a small one (a link to the license by
> name for [vfs], a single short sentence for [codec]). This is not
> sufficient for [math] since we have to put the text of BSD type licenses
> for several classes, this is the reason why I put these in the NOTICE
> file at first.
>
> It seems strange to me to put a single license file with both our
> license and these external licenses. Should these really go in the
> LICENSE file or could they be put in a separate file (OTHER-LICENSES or
> a name like that) or in several separate files, (LICENSE-lmder,
> LICENSE-Heirer, LICENSE-lapack ...) ?
>
See the sample license file here:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
"Here" is the link.
> Luc
>
>
> >
> > I think this is a release blocker.
> >
> > The packaging of the binary archive looks wrong as well - I don't
> > think it should contain Javadoc for the test code, nor the Cobertura
> > reports (IIRC these have an incompatible license?). Looks like the
> > entire site was accidentally included, as the binary archives are
> > huge.
> >
> > Also a release blocker IMO.
> >
> > The source files use the $Date$ SVN marker, which makes it hard to
> > compare the SVN tag with the source archive, as the date is expressed
> > in local time. Not a release blocker, but ideally I'd like to see
> > these removed at some point.
> >
> > Code builds and tests OK for me on Java 1.5 using Ant and Maven2.
> >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
sebb a écrit :
> On 25/07/2009, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/commons-math-2.0-RC1/
>
> Sigs OK, but the MD5 and SHA1 hashes are different from usual:
>
> MD5(commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz)= 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211
>
> This complicates checking them.
>
> The normal format is:
>
> 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211 *commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz
>
> The NOTICE file still shows 2008.
>
> Also, the NOTICE file contains some 3rd party licences - these should
> be in the LICENSE file; NOTICE should be for attributions only.
I have looked at other commons components for an example of how to put
all licenses in the LICENSE file. I found none. The only components that
have external attributions in the NOTICE files apart from [math] are the
following ones:
[vfs] states this in the NOTICE file:
As an optional dependency it uses javamail developed by
SUN Microsystems
You can get the library and its source from
http://java.sun.com/products/javamail/
This library uses the CDDL open source license
[codec] states this in the NOTICE file:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
src/test/org/apache/commons/codec/language/DoubleMetaphoneTest.java
contains
test data from http://aspell.sourceforge.net/test/batch0.tab.
Copyright (C) 2002 Kevin Atkinson (kevina@gnu.org). Verbatim copying
and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium,
provided this notice is preserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[el] states this in the NOTICE file:
EL-8 patch - Copyright 2004-2007 Jamie Taylor
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EL-8
[compress] states this in the NOTICE file:
Original BZip2 classes contributed by Keiron Liddle
<ke...@aftexsw.com>, Aftex Software to the Apache Ant project
Original Tar classes from contributors of the Apache Ant project
Original Zip classes from contributors of the Apache Ant project
Original CPIO classes contributed by Markus Kuss and the jRPM project
(jrpm.sourceforge.net)
All these components put only the Apache license in the LICENSE file,
which seemed fair to me. The dependencies these components have fit well
with either no license text or a small one (a link to the license by
name for [vfs], a single short sentence for [codec]). This is not
sufficient for [math] since we have to put the text of BSD type licenses
for several classes, this is the reason why I put these in the NOTICE
file at first.
It seems strange to me to put a single license file with both our
license and these external licenses. Should these really go in the
LICENSE file or could they be put in a separate file (OTHER-LICENSES or
a name like that) or in several separate files, (LICENSE-lmder,
LICENSE-Heirer, LICENSE-lapack ...) ?
Luc
>
> I think this is a release blocker.
>
> The packaging of the binary archive looks wrong as well - I don't
> think it should contain Javadoc for the test code, nor the Cobertura
> reports (IIRC these have an incompatible license?). Looks like the
> entire site was accidentally included, as the binary archives are
> huge.
>
> Also a release blocker IMO.
>
> The source files use the $Date$ SVN marker, which makes it hard to
> compare the SVN tag with the source archive, as the date is expressed
> in local time. Not a release blocker, but ideally I'd like to see
> these removed at some point.
>
> Code builds and tests OK for me on Java 1.5 using Ant and Maven2.
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
sebb wrote:
> On 25/07/2009, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/commons-math-2.0-RC1/
>>
>
> Sigs OK, but the MD5 and SHA1 hashes are different from usual:
>
> MD5(commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz)= 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211
>
> This complicates checking them.
>
> The normal format is:
>
> 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211 *commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz
>
I will see what I can do to change these.
> The NOTICE file still shows 2008.
>
Thanks for pointing this out.
> Also, the NOTICE file contains some 3rd party licences - these should
> be in the LICENSE file; NOTICE should be for attributions only.
>
> I think this is a release blocker.
>
Will get this sorted out.
> The packaging of the binary archive looks wrong as well - I don't
> think it should contain Javadoc for the test code, nor the Cobertura
> reports (IIRC these have an incompatible license?). Looks like the
> entire site was accidentally included, as the binary archives are
> huge.
>
> Also a release blocker IMO.
>
I will remove the development reports. I do want to ship the user guide
with the binary distro, so will strip down the site to a minimal set of
reports.
Thanks!
Phil
> The source files use the $Date$ SVN marker, which makes it hard to
> compare the SVN tag with the source archive, as the date is expressed
> in local time. Not a release blocker, but ideally I'd like to see
> these removed at some point.
>
> Code builds and tests OK for me on Java 1.5 using Ant and Maven2.
>
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 25/07/2009, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/commons-math-2.0-RC1/
Sigs OK, but the MD5 and SHA1 hashes are different from usual:
MD5(commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz)= 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211
This complicates checking them.
The normal format is:
3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211 *commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz
The NOTICE file still shows 2008.
Also, the NOTICE file contains some 3rd party licences - these should
be in the LICENSE file; NOTICE should be for attributions only.
I think this is a release blocker.
The packaging of the binary archive looks wrong as well - I don't
think it should contain Javadoc for the test code, nor the Cobertura
reports (IIRC these have an incompatible license?). Looks like the
entire site was accidentally included, as the binary archives are
huge.
Also a release blocker IMO.
The source files use the $Date$ SVN marker, which makes it hard to
compare the SVN tag with the source archive, as the date is expressed
in local time. Not a release blocker, but ideally I'd like to see
these removed at some point.
Code builds and tests OK for me on Java 1.5 using Ant and Maven2.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org