You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com> on 2006/09/25 09:24:21 UTC
[VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
internally approving the 4.0.0 TS3 test snapshot release. We are now
requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator
group and the Incubator PMC.
The current incubation docs recommend doing this sort of "test
snapshot" release, and it appears from recent conversations that this
will most likely soon be required for all podlings nearing
graduation. Based on our experience this has been a valuable exercise
and it actually took us 3 tries to get to one internally approved in
the podling community.
The intent of this "release" is not to be something that will be
maintained over time or used be end-users of the project, and there
is no branch for it in SVN. Our goal with this test snapshot release
was to create an initial release process and make sure that all of
the artifacts are in place as needed. This includes:
- all license headers and copyright notices in place (ASL2 headers)
- no remaining old copyright notices or headers
- NOTICE, LICENSE, KEYS, et cetera files in place
- test proper zip and tgz files, plus the md5 and asc files for each
- put README file and other such things in place to make it
(hopefully) easy for an end user to run OOTB
Based on what has been established as part of this test snapshot
experience we plan to do a real release (version 4.0.0) after
graduation with a branch and such that will be maintained over time
and that is meant to be used by end-users, but those (again) are not
the intents of this test snapshot release.
The files for the release are available in my people.apache.org
account, see the links below for detailed locations. There is also a
wiki page describing the test snapshot release here:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/wAE
The wiki page for the proposed OFBiz release plan is here:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/1wE
-David
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS3.zip
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-
incubating-4.0.0.TS3.zip.md5
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-
incubating-4.0.0.TS3.zip.asc
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS3.tgz
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-
incubating-4.0.0.TS3.tgz.md5
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-
incubating-4.0.0.TS3.tgz.asc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
On Sep 28, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> NOTICE should not have the list of licenses that apply - that's for
> the
> LICENSE file.
>
> NOTICE should contain any required informational notices required
> by those
> licenses. For example, JDBM (the last entry in LICENSE) requires
> in Clause
> 5 that 'due credit should be given to the JDBM Project (
> http://jdbm.sourceforge.net/)'. That's the type of entry that goes in
> NOTICE.
>
> HTH. -- justin
Okay, I think I'm starting to see the distinction. I moved the
library list to the LICENSE file (not sure if it's needed there, but
it doesn't seem to be needed/appropriate in the NOTICE file.
I also started a section in the NOTICE file for the actual notices. I
threw in the JDBM notice at the bottom and left the place holders for
each other license as we determine which licenses do and don't
require such notices.
From the license text it is hard to tell... Many of them do require
copyright notices or headers in source files or inclusion of the
license text, but if I'm understanding right none of those concerns
the NOTICE file, but rather the LICENSE file and the various source
files under those licenses.
The AL2 license mentions the notice file specifically, and sounds
like we need to go through ALL libraries we include and copy the
contents of their NOTICE files to our NOTICE file... Is that correct?
For other licenses are there any phrases to watch out for, or is
there a list of license compliance guidelines in any of the ASF
documentation?
The updated LICENSE and NOTICE files are available here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/LICENSE
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/NOTICE
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 9/28/06, David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've done another pass on the LICENSE file to hopefully address this
> problem, but I'm not really sure that I understood exactly what it
> needs to look like, so feedback on this would be great.
>
> The updated LICENSE and NOTICE files are available here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/LICENSE
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/NOTICE
NOTICE should not have the list of licenses that apply - that's for the
LICENSE file.
NOTICE should contain any required informational notices required by those
licenses. For example, JDBM (the last entry in LICENSE) requires in Clause
5 that 'due credit should be given to the JDBM Project (
http://jdbm.sourceforge.net/)'. That's the type of entry that goes in
NOTICE.
HTH. -- justin
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
I've done another pass on the LICENSE file to hopefully address this
problem, but I'm not really sure that I understood exactly what it
needs to look like, so feedback on this would be great.
The updated LICENSE and NOTICE files are available here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/LICENSE
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/NOTICE
Thanks,
-David
On Sep 25, 2006, at 6:04 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 9/25/06, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
>> There's one important gotcha:
>> -> the NOTICE file has information on the licenses of various third
>> party jars, which in some cases are not a subset of ALv2, even if
>> compatible. I believe that info should go into the LICENSE file; but
>> can't find an authortive reference on our website right now. Cliff,
>> Robert? This is important because the notice file cannot modify the
>> terms of the LICENSE that are supposed to apply to the work as a
>> whole, whereas obviously a LICENSE file can modify LICENSE terms.
>
> That is correct. LICENSE should be the collection of all licenses
> that file is under. See:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE
>
> HTH. -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 9/25/06, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/06, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE
i was going to use the notice as an example of good practice until i
noted that it lacked the header which is now recommended. if it gains
one soon, let me know so i can use it as an example.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 9/25/06, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/06, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
> > There's one important gotcha:
> > -> the NOTICE file has information on the licenses of various third
> > party jars, which in some cases are not a subset of ALv2, even if
> > compatible. I believe that info should go into the LICENSE file; but
> > can't find an authortive reference on our website right now. Cliff,
> > Robert?
IANALVP ;-)
sounds like a job for cliff or legal-discuss...
(they'll probably talk about collective licenses for collective works
so i'm not sure whether it'll be a definite legal don't do or not...)
>> This is important because the notice file cannot modify the
> > terms of the LICENSE that are supposed to apply to the work as a
> > whole, whereas obviously a LICENSE file can modify LICENSE terms.
>
> That is correct. LICENSE should be the collection of all licenses
> that file is under. See:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE
+1
i would say that users would reasonably expect licenses to be
contained in the LICENSE file and notices in the NOTICE file. this
best practice is in the release management guide (or rather a TODO for
it is :-/
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 9/26/06, David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 2006, at 10:56 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > (FYI a source distribution is required but i'm assume that you know
> > how to svn export)
>
> Do you mean a separate source distribution is needed?
many would argue that for open source, the source distribution is the
release: binaries are just for convenience :-)
here are a couple of pragmatic (as well as the philosophical) reasons
to issue source distributions:
1 downstream repackagers prefer to work from a pure source
distribution. typically, they will take the source distribution and
apply patches then build according to their system and then package.
helping downstream distributors helps acceptance of the project.
2 source distributions encourage developers. new developers are needed
to keep apache projects healthy.
> In the past, as with this test snapshot, we have just included the
> source and binary in the same archive. This has suited us well as
> probably 70-80% of ofbiz is not compiled, ie script, configuration,
> etc files.
s binary distribution is any distribution that is not just a source
export. it's not uncommon for binary distributions from apache to
contain source. so, that sounds fine for your binary distribution.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
On Sep 25, 2006, at 10:56 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> (FYI a source distribution is required but i'm assume that you know
> how to svn export)
Do you mean a separate source distribution is needed?
In the past, as with this test snapshot, we have just included the
source and binary in the same archive. This has suited us well as
probably 70-80% of ofbiz is not compiled, ie script, configuration,
etc files.
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 9/25/06, David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Leo and Justin for pointing this out. We'll get it fixed
> (along with some other things too probably, thanks to Leo for some
> good feedback) and make another test snapshot to submit for a vote.
it too late for me to go through such a big release now but i hope to
get to it tomorrow.
(FYI a source distribution is required but i'm assume that you know
how to svn export)
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
Thanks Leo and Justin for pointing this out. We'll get it fixed
(along with some other things too probably, thanks to Leo for some
good feedback) and make another test snapshot to submit for a vote.
-David
On Sep 25, 2006, at 6:04 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 9/25/06, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
>> There's one important gotcha:
>> -> the NOTICE file has information on the licenses of various third
>> party jars, which in some cases are not a subset of ALv2, even if
>> compatible. I believe that info should go into the LICENSE file; but
>> can't find an authortive reference on our website right now. Cliff,
>> Robert? This is important because the notice file cannot modify the
>> terms of the LICENSE that are supposed to apply to the work as a
>> whole, whereas obviously a LICENSE file can modify LICENSE terms.
>
> That is correct. LICENSE should be the collection of all licenses
> that file is under. See:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE
>
> HTH. -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 9/25/06, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
> There's one important gotcha:
> -> the NOTICE file has information on the licenses of various third
> party jars, which in some cases are not a subset of ALv2, even if
> compatible. I believe that info should go into the LICENSE file; but
> can't find an authortive reference on our website right now. Cliff,
> Robert? This is important because the notice file cannot modify the
> terms of the LICENSE that are supposed to apply to the work as a
> whole, whereas obviously a LICENSE file can modify LICENSE terms.
That is correct. LICENSE should be the collection of all licenses
that file is under. See:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE
HTH. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
Yes! Actual Feedback! Whoohooh!
On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:24 AM, David E Jones wrote:
> The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
> internally approving the 4.0.0 TS3 test snapshot release. We are
> now requesting a vote for review and approval from the general
> Incubator group and the Incubator PMC.
There's one important gotcha:
-> the NOTICE file has information on the licenses of various third
party jars, which in some cases are not a subset of ALv2, even if
compatible. I believe that info should go into the LICENSE file; but
can't find an authortive reference on our website right now. Cliff,
Robert? This is important because the notice file cannot modify the
terms of the LICENSE that are supposed to apply to the work as a
whole, whereas obviously a LICENSE file can modify LICENSE terms.
If that were fixed I'd +1 the thing.
And then some nitpicking/misc comments:
-> I downloaded the tgz. I always get annoyed when a software release
doesn't extract into an obvious name. Eg `tar zxf apache-of* && cd
apache-of*` should work. Probably a religious subject.
-> I read OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES and looked at the underlying mechanisms
to link in LGPL stuff. I think they're fully compliant with the 3rd
party licensing policy draft, which is quite a feat. However, I
believe that because there is some "bridge-to-LGPL code" shipped
within the ofbiz distro, that this requires explicit approval from
PMC chair (Noel) and legal VP (Cliff) per that policy. Of course,
since the policy is not in effect yet, you need not worry yet.
-> the statistical sample (random clicking) of files I opened all
have "copyright 2001-2006 The ASF". I suspect that's wrong, since
IIRC ofbiz wasn't @ apache in 2001. The year 2001 should probably be
replaced by the year when development of ofbiz started @ apache.
-> You're shipping various libraries and stuff which I know include
NOTICE files of their own, but those notices are not found or
referenced anywhere outside their jars (for example ant.jar has a
META-INF/NOTICE.txt). I would say the NOTICE file should point to
those other notice files that exist somewhere deep within such a big
distribution, but I think that's maybe not a legal requirement.
-> All ofbiz source files have author tags. The ASF has had many,
many, loooong discussions about them. In the end, I believe current
policy still is that they are strongly discouraged, but allowed. If
you haven't already, you should motivate for yourselves you really
really want to keep them. Re:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2004/
board_minutes_2004_09_22.txt
-> even if you don't branch, you should really do an `svn tag` for
any release (even RCs). Tagging is basically free, and it provides
that much more clarity on 'what is what'
-> my gpg install is broken on this machine so I didn't bother
verifying the gpg sigs. I'm sure they're ok, or otherwise you'll get
hunted down and shot by someone else :)
-> its real easy to automate the steps on your "release manager" wiki
page. In particular using <tar/> and <zip/> from ant avoids some
nasty problems ("a lone zero block at FOO" when using sun tar on gnu
tar-created files, for example). Just an idea.
And then finally...
-> following the PDF install instructions (HTML would be nice),
things did all compile and run nicely (mac os x 10.4 for powerpc,
java 5). Honestly, I typed "./ant" before reading the getting started
page, which seemed to have different results from the run-install
target. O well. And after scrolling down the "production guide" big
fat install manual I found out I had to visit /catalog/control/main
to see if it worked, which showed up properly too. An /index.html
that provides some more feedback -- "it worked!" is my favorite --
would be nice.
-> this thing is truly *huge*! It reminds me of cocoon....with that
in mind, its no small effort to get everything as cleaned up and
structured as it is, and runnable out of the box. Kudos to y'all!
cheers,
Leo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 9/25/06, David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
> internally approving the 4.0.0 TS3 test snapshot release. We are now
> requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator
> group and the Incubator PMC.
gpg looks good to me (KEYS imports ok, key is available from public
key servers, signature ok) and sum checks
RAT turned up the following:
***IMPORTANT***
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/CompressionClientSocketFa,
ctory.java, http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/CompressionInputStream.java
, http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/CompressionOutputStream.java,
framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/CompressionServerSocketFactory.java,
framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/CompressionSocket.java,
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/CompressionServerSocket.java
and http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/CompressionConstants.java
do not appear to be licensed under an OSI compliant license. IMO the
terms are badly drafted and discriminate against the profession or
vocation of comedian (no laughing matter ;-) basically anyone using
the software must agree not to use the software to make fun of sun.
but IANAL and this needs to be raised on legal-discuss.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/applications/content/webapp/content/WEB-INF/pagedefs/cms/CMSSiteFind.xml
is a bit of a mystery and seems to be lacking source
no license headers (check whether they are apache source)
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/applications/content/webapp/content/images/agincutil.js
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/applications/content/webapp/content/images/composite.js
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/applications/content/webapp/content/images/contentForum.css
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/webapp/facility/facility/batchPrintMarkAsAccepted.ftl
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/data/GeoData_ES.xml
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/ecommain.css
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/maincss.css
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/tabstyles.css
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/webtools/webapp/webtools/UomReport.xml
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/webtools/webapp/webtools/includes/datepicker.js
i'm worried about
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/applications/pos/dtd/jcl.dtd.
DTD are a a PITA but it's a document and we need permission to
distribute.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/config/ProductEntityLabels_fr.properties
is licensed under Eclipse Public License v1.0. the draft third part
licensing policy allows this in only binary form due to a reciprocity
clause in the license. i'm a little worried by the fact that this is
the only localisation file which is not ASL'd.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/appserver/templates/weblogic81/startOFBizServer.cmd
and
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/appserver/templates/weblogic81/startOFBizServer.sh
lack license files and appear to be similar to standard weblogic
startup scripts. this could be perfectly innocent (there are only a
few ways to start the server) and hopefully not an unfortunate
unlicensed derivative work...
ofbiz/framework/data/derby/ in the distribution contains some logs and
other bits and bats which aren't in subversion and i suspect didn't
really want to get released. same goes for ofbiz/framework/logs/
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/calendar.html
and
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/calendar1.js
terms probably needs to be noted in LICENSE
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/calendarTable.css,
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/combobox.js,
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/fieldlookup.js
and http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/calendarstyles.css
appear to be associated with above but lack license headers. need to
check the right license.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/workflow/dtd/xpdl.dtd
has no license header but perhaps is part of a specification?
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org