You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org> on 2012/01/13 16:18:33 UTC
[VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Hi all,
Clerezza 0.2 is ready for release. This will be our first incubator release.
We had a preliminary vote in the PPMC, which has been accepted, the +1
votes include the one from IPMC member Tommaso Teofili.
The PPMC vote result is here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-clerezza-dev/201201.mbox/%3CCALvhUEXQVsKro6jRBY06%2B2fh6TGv5yBkAGd3Eoj6mqiQ%3DCe1hQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
We need two more IPMC votes to pass.
Please vote on releasing Clerezza parent and all the modules in the
release profile.
A zip with the source distribution and one with an executable binary
distribution (jena tdb based launcher) are available with their
signatures at:
http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201201/
In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.
Keys:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/clerezza/trunk/KEYS
The vote is open for 72 hours, or until we get the needed number of votes
(3 +1).
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
To learn more about Apache Clerezza visit:
http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza/
Cheers,
Reto
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me...@farewellutopia.com>.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > ...The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are
> releasing a
> > few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience but
> > could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
> > pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and notice
> > files....
>
> I agree with that, but it doesn't require cutting a new release IMO -
> releasing with an open issue in Clerezza's jira about this would be
> fine from my Clerezza mentor's point of view.
>
There was another problem with the last source release candidate: it
includes the modules which aren't part of the release profile, I'm
currently working on an assembly descriptor which fixes this.
Cheers,
Reto
>
> -Bertrand (haven't found time to review the release yet, hopefully
> later this week)
>
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org
> >> wrote:
> >>... The cleanest way to handle that for Clerezza
> >> might be to add a note to the LICENSE file that lists which other
> >> licenses besides Apache are included, and points to a text file with
> >> licensing information for those additional dependencies. Putting some
> >> simple structure in that file might help automating (at least
> >> partially) that check for future releases.
> >>
> > I prefer having different files for the different licenses so that two
> > LICENSE*-files always have the same content...
>
> Ok, but note
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
> which says " all license information should be contained in the
> LICENSE file".
>
>
Looking for an example I took a closer look at sling.
- I've noticed that in most sling projects there are two license files,
e.g.:
./bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-usermanager/src/main/resources/META-INF/LICENSE
and ./bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-usermanager/LICENSE not sure what this is for
- some subcomponents, like bundles/commons/json/ contain no LICENSE or
NOTICE file at all.
- some subcomponents have additional licenses in their LICENSE file, e.g.
commons/mime contains a BSD license for JQuery TreeTable plugin.
- Other subcomponents contain js-files with copyright headers (e.g.
./bundles/extensions/explorer/src/main/resources/libs/sling/explorer/js/jquery-1.4.2.min.js
contains a copyright by the DOJO foundation), this copyright is not
repeated in NOTICE or LICENSE file
- The launchpad projects contain no LICENSE files at all and
org.apache.sling.launchpad-7-SNAPSHOT-standalone.jar contains a license
file in META-INF with only the apache license despite containing the
commons/mine jar which itself contains the BSD license for JQuery TreeTable.
- The source jar generated when building sling with the apache-release
profile contains a LICENSE containing a license for JSON in Java (which
contains the sentence "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.").
The BSD license is contained in bundles/commons/mine/LICENSE.
If sling is a good example to look at (and I hope it is) then the summary
is that it is enough to have a license either in the component or in the
project the component is distributed with. With the note added to the
clerezza readme we made this even more transparent. Also it is not
necessary to repeat the copyright information contained in js files in
NOTICE or LICENSE files (asked this question on apache-legal before).
So the only remaining thing seems to merge the license files together to
comply with
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses.
Other opinions?
Cheers,
Reto
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org
> >> wrote:
> >>... The cleanest way to handle that for Clerezza
> >> might be to add a note to the LICENSE file that lists which other
> >> licenses besides Apache are included, and points to a text file with
> >> licensing information for those additional dependencies. Putting some
> >> simple structure in that file might help automating (at least
> >> partially) that check for future releases.
> >>
> > I prefer having different files for the different licenses so that two
> > LICENSE*-files always have the same content...
>
> Ok, but note
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
> which says " all license information should be contained in the
> LICENSE file".
>
>
Looking for an example I took a closer look at sling.
- I've noticed that in most sling projects there are two license files,
e.g.:
./bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-usermanager/src/main/resources/META-INF/LICENSE
and ./bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-usermanager/LICENSE not sure what this is for
- some subcomponents, like bundles/commons/json/ contain no LICENSE or
NOTICE file at all.
- some subcomponents have additional licenses in their LICENSE file, e.g.
commons/mime contains a BSD license for JQuery TreeTable plugin.
- Other subcomponents contain js-files with copyright headers (e.g.
./bundles/extensions/explorer/src/main/resources/libs/sling/explorer/js/jquery-1.4.2.min.js
contains a copyright by the DOJO foundation), this copyright is not
repeated in NOTICE or LICENSE file
- The launchpad projects contain no LICENSE files at all and
org.apache.sling.launchpad-7-SNAPSHOT-standalone.jar contains a license
file in META-INF with only the apache license despite containing the
commons/mine jar which itself contains the BSD license for JQuery TreeTable.
- The source jar generated when building sling with the apache-release
profile contains a LICENSE containing a license for JSON in Java (which
contains the sentence "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.").
The BSD license is contained in bundles/commons/mine/LICENSE.
If sling is a good example to look at (and I hope it is) then the summary
is that it is enough to have a license either in the component or in the
project the component is distributed with. With the note added to the
clerezza readme we made this even more transparent. Also it is not
necessary to repeat the copyright information contained in js files in
NOTICE or LICENSE files (asked this question on apache-legal before).
So the only remaining thing seems to merge the license files together to
comply with
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses.
Other opinions?
Cheers,
Reto
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
>> wrote:
>>... The cleanest way to handle that for Clerezza
>> might be to add a note to the LICENSE file that lists which other
>> licenses besides Apache are included, and points to a text file with
>> licensing information for those additional dependencies. Putting some
>> simple structure in that file might help automating (at least
>> partially) that check for future releases.
>>
> I prefer having different files for the different licenses so that two
> LICENSE*-files always have the same content...
Ok, but note http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
which says " all license information should be contained in the
LICENSE file".
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
>> wrote:
>>... The cleanest way to handle that for Clerezza
>> might be to add a note to the LICENSE file that lists which other
>> licenses besides Apache are included, and points to a text file with
>> licensing information for those additional dependencies. Putting some
>> simple structure in that file might help automating (at least
>> partially) that check for future releases.
>>
> I prefer having different files for the different licenses so that two
> LICENSE*-files always have the same content...
Ok, but note http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
which says " all license information should be contained in the
LICENSE file".
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> ...As one example, the binary release clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip
> >> contains a big jar platform.launcher.tdb-0.5-incubating.jar which
> >> embeds other jars, for example it contains
> >> servlet-api-3.0.20100224.jar, which is EPL licensed so that needs to
> >> be mentioned in clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip.
> >>
> > Is there a way to systematically find out the license of such transitive
> > maven dependencies? The jar you mention contains no license or notice
> file,
> > it contains a maven pom file without licensing information...
>
> I'm afraid the only way to find out about such a license is to hunt
> that project's website.
>
> The techniques mentioned on my blog at [1] should list all the
> dependencies of a Maven project, and after you remove all the known
> good ones (org.apache.* etc.) you're left with a list of dependencies
> that need to be checked.
Thanks for the hint. We have to do this for the tdb launcher as well as for
the storageless parent as the tdb launcher includes all of the storageless
launcher without its dependencies resulting as tdb launcher dependencies
(the scope 'provided' prevents transitivity)
> The cleanest way to handle that for Clerezza
> might be to add a note to the LICENSE file that lists which other
> licenses besides Apache are included, and points to a text file with
> licensing information for those additional dependencies. Putting some
> simple structure in that file might help automating (at least
> partially) that check for future releases.
>
I prefer having different files for the different licenses so that two
LICENSE*-files always have the same content.
Reto
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> ...As one example, the binary release clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip
> >> contains a big jar platform.launcher.tdb-0.5-incubating.jar which
> >> embeds other jars, for example it contains
> >> servlet-api-3.0.20100224.jar, which is EPL licensed so that needs to
> >> be mentioned in clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip.
> >>
> > Is there a way to systematically find out the license of such transitive
> > maven dependencies? The jar you mention contains no license or notice
> file,
> > it contains a maven pom file without licensing information...
>
> I'm afraid the only way to find out about such a license is to hunt
> that project's website.
>
> The techniques mentioned on my blog at [1] should list all the
> dependencies of a Maven project, and after you remove all the known
> good ones (org.apache.* etc.) you're left with a list of dependencies
> that need to be checked.
Thanks for the hint. We have to do this for the tdb launcher as well as for
the storageless parent as the tdb launcher includes all of the storageless
launcher without its dependencies resulting as tdb launcher dependencies
(the scope 'provided' prevents transitivity)
> The cleanest way to handle that for Clerezza
> might be to add a note to the LICENSE file that lists which other
> licenses besides Apache are included, and points to a text file with
> licensing information for those additional dependencies. Putting some
> simple structure in that file might help automating (at least
> partially) that check for future releases.
>
I prefer having different files for the different licenses so that two
LICENSE*-files always have the same content.
Reto
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...As one example, the binary release clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip
>> contains a big jar platform.launcher.tdb-0.5-incubating.jar which
>> embeds other jars, for example it contains
>> servlet-api-3.0.20100224.jar, which is EPL licensed so that needs to
>> be mentioned in clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip.
>>
> Is there a way to systematically find out the license of such transitive
> maven dependencies? The jar you mention contains no license or notice file,
> it contains a maven pom file without licensing information...
I'm afraid the only way to find out about such a license is to hunt
that project's website.
The techniques mentioned on my blog at [1] should list all the
dependencies of a Maven project, and after you remove all the known
good ones (org.apache.* etc.) you're left with a list of dependencies
that need to be checked. The cleanest way to handle that for Clerezza
might be to add a note to the LICENSE file that lists which other
licenses besides Apache are included, and points to a text file with
licensing information for those additional dependencies. Putting some
simple structure in that file might help automating (at least
partially) that check for future releases.
-Bertrand
[1] http://grep.codeconsult.ch/2010/07/08/list-all-your-maven-dependencies/
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...As one example, the binary release clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip
>> contains a big jar platform.launcher.tdb-0.5-incubating.jar which
>> embeds other jars, for example it contains
>> servlet-api-3.0.20100224.jar, which is EPL licensed so that needs to
>> be mentioned in clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip.
>>
> Is there a way to systematically find out the license of such transitive
> maven dependencies? The jar you mention contains no license or notice file,
> it contains a maven pom file without licensing information...
I'm afraid the only way to find out about such a license is to hunt
that project's website.
The techniques mentioned on my blog at [1] should list all the
dependencies of a Maven project, and after you remove all the known
good ones (org.apache.* etc.) you're left with a list of dependencies
that need to be checked. The cleanest way to handle that for Clerezza
might be to add a note to the LICENSE file that lists which other
licenses besides Apache are included, and points to a text file with
licensing information for those additional dependencies. Putting some
simple structure in that file might help automating (at least
partially) that check for future releases.
-Bertrand
[1] http://grep.codeconsult.ch/2010/07/08/list-all-your-maven-dependencies/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> <me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:55 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> >> <me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> >> > bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@apache.org
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > ...The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are
> >> >> releasing a
> >> >> > few dozen modules which are released together for voting
> convenience
> >> >> > but
> >> >> > could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the
> readme
> >> >> > pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and
> >> >> > notice
> >> >> > files....
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree with that, but it doesn't require cutting a new release IMO -
> >> >> releasing with an open issue in Clerezza's jira about this would be
> >> >> fine from my Clerezza mentor's point of view.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I've added a README in the root, see
> >> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/README.txt
> >> >
> >> > Also I've added a project to create an assembly of that contains only
> >> > the
> >> > sources of the modules of an active build project, it is here:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/clerezza-jar-resource-bundle/
> >> >
> >> > With these I plan to prepare a new release candidate tomorrow.
> >> >
> >> > Reto
> >>
> >> Its not clear if that will change the binary distribution so just a
> >> quick note to remind about that as it also needs to note all the
> >> licenses it uses.
> >> (i did check on you dev list and it doesn't look like the respin has
> >> happen yet so hopefully that isn't an inconvenience)
> >>
> >
> > Yes I adapted the NOTICE of the launcher (i.e. the one in the binary
> distro)
> > as follows:
> >
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/platform.launcher.tdb/NOTICE?view=markup
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Reto
> >
>
Thanks Ant, for looking at this this in such detail. After 4 candidates had
to be dismissed for license reasons it would be good to have this things
fixed for the next release candidate.
> I don't think the NOTICE file is the correct place for these, and i
> don't think thats enough to document the licenses that apply.
>
What would the right place be then?
> As one example, the binary release clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip
> contains a big jar platform.launcher.tdb-0.5-incubating.jar which
> embeds other jars, for example it contains
> servlet-api-3.0.20100224.jar, which is EPL licensed so that needs to
> be mentioned in clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip.
>
Is there a way to systematically find out the license of such transitive
maven dependencies? The jar you mention contains no license or notice file,
it contains a maven pom file without licensing information. It seems to be
part of the pre-eclipse jetty release, on the mortbay website I read that
jetty is apache licensed. Other jetty files are in org/eclipse and thus
probably EPL.
>
> There are many jars within jars using various licenses included in
> clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip which also need to be mentioned. Ask
> your mentors for help if the requirements aren't clear, or at least
> ask them to vote here if they disagree.
>
I added our mentors to the cc, hoping they step into the conversation and
that I eventually know what step I need to do for a legally acceptable
release.
Cheers,
Reto
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> <me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:55 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> >> <me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> >> > bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@apache.org
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > ...The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are
> >> >> releasing a
> >> >> > few dozen modules which are released together for voting
> convenience
> >> >> > but
> >> >> > could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the
> readme
> >> >> > pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and
> >> >> > notice
> >> >> > files....
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree with that, but it doesn't require cutting a new release IMO -
> >> >> releasing with an open issue in Clerezza's jira about this would be
> >> >> fine from my Clerezza mentor's point of view.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I've added a README in the root, see
> >> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/README.txt
> >> >
> >> > Also I've added a project to create an assembly of that contains only
> >> > the
> >> > sources of the modules of an active build project, it is here:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/clerezza-jar-resource-bundle/
> >> >
> >> > With these I plan to prepare a new release candidate tomorrow.
> >> >
> >> > Reto
> >>
> >> Its not clear if that will change the binary distribution so just a
> >> quick note to remind about that as it also needs to note all the
> >> licenses it uses.
> >> (i did check on you dev list and it doesn't look like the respin has
> >> happen yet so hopefully that isn't an inconvenience)
> >>
> >
> > Yes I adapted the NOTICE of the launcher (i.e. the one in the binary
> distro)
> > as follows:
> >
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/platform.launcher.tdb/NOTICE?view=markup
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Reto
> >
>
Thanks Ant, for looking at this this in such detail. After 4 candidates had
to be dismissed for license reasons it would be good to have this things
fixed for the next release candidate.
> I don't think the NOTICE file is the correct place for these, and i
> don't think thats enough to document the licenses that apply.
>
What would the right place be then?
> As one example, the binary release clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip
> contains a big jar platform.launcher.tdb-0.5-incubating.jar which
> embeds other jars, for example it contains
> servlet-api-3.0.20100224.jar, which is EPL licensed so that needs to
> be mentioned in clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip.
>
Is there a way to systematically find out the license of such transitive
maven dependencies? The jar you mention contains no license or notice file,
it contains a maven pom file without licensing information. It seems to be
part of the pre-eclipse jetty release, on the mortbay website I read that
jetty is apache licensed. Other jetty files are in org/eclipse and thus
probably EPL.
>
> There are many jars within jars using various licenses included in
> clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip which also need to be mentioned. Ask
> your mentors for help if the requirements aren't clear, or at least
> ask them to vote here if they disagree.
>
I added our mentors to the cc, hoping they step into the conversation and
that I eventually know what step I need to do for a legally acceptable
release.
Cheers,
Reto
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
<me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:55 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
>> <me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>> > bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > ...The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are
>> >> releasing a
>> >> > few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience
>> >> > but
>> >> > could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
>> >> > pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and
>> >> > notice
>> >> > files....
>> >>
>> >> I agree with that, but it doesn't require cutting a new release IMO -
>> >> releasing with an open issue in Clerezza's jira about this would be
>> >> fine from my Clerezza mentor's point of view.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I've added a README in the root, see
>> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/README.txt
>> >
>> > Also I've added a project to create an assembly of that contains only
>> > the
>> > sources of the modules of an active build project, it is here:
>> >
>> >
>> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/clerezza-jar-resource-bundle/
>> >
>> > With these I plan to prepare a new release candidate tomorrow.
>> >
>> > Reto
>>
>> Its not clear if that will change the binary distribution so just a
>> quick note to remind about that as it also needs to note all the
>> licenses it uses.
>> (i did check on you dev list and it doesn't look like the respin has
>> happen yet so hopefully that isn't an inconvenience)
>>
>
> Yes I adapted the NOTICE of the launcher (i.e. the one in the binary distro)
> as follows:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/platform.launcher.tdb/NOTICE?view=markup
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
I don't think the NOTICE file is the correct place for these, and i
don't think thats enough to document the licenses that apply.
As one example, the binary release clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip
contains a big jar platform.launcher.tdb-0.5-incubating.jar which
embeds other jars, for example it contains
servlet-api-3.0.20100224.jar, which is EPL licensed so that needs to
be mentioned in clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip.
There are many jars within jars using various licenses included in
clerezza-tdb-distribution.zip which also need to be mentioned. Ask
your mentors for help if the requirements aren't clear, or at least
ask them to vote here if they disagree.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me...@farewellutopia.com>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:55 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> <me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > ...The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are
> >> releasing a
> >> > few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience
> but
> >> > could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
> >> > pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and
> notice
> >> > files....
> >>
> >> I agree with that, but it doesn't require cutting a new release IMO -
> >> releasing with an open issue in Clerezza's jira about this would be
> >> fine from my Clerezza mentor's point of view.
> >>
> >
> > I've added a README in the root, see
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/README.txt
> >
> > Also I've added a project to create an assembly of that contains only
> the
> > sources of the modules of an active build project, it is here:
> >
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/clerezza-jar-resource-bundle/
> >
> > With these I plan to prepare a new release candidate tomorrow.
> >
> > Reto
>
> Its not clear if that will change the binary distribution so just a
> quick note to remind about that as it also needs to note all the
> licenses it uses.
> (i did check on you dev list and it doesn't look like the respin has
> happen yet so hopefully that isn't an inconvenience)
>
>
Yes I adapted the NOTICE of the launcher (i.e. the one in the binary
distro) as follows:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/platform.launcher.tdb/NOTICE?view=markup
Cheers,
Reto
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me...@farewellutopia.com>.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:55 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> <me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > ...The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are
> >> releasing a
> >> > few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience
> but
> >> > could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
> >> > pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and
> notice
> >> > files....
> >>
> >> I agree with that, but it doesn't require cutting a new release IMO -
> >> releasing with an open issue in Clerezza's jira about this would be
> >> fine from my Clerezza mentor's point of view.
> >>
> >
> > I've added a README in the root, see
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/README.txt
> >
> > Also I've added a project to create an assembly of that contains only
> the
> > sources of the modules of an active build project, it is here:
> >
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/clerezza-jar-resource-bundle/
> >
> > With these I plan to prepare a new release candidate tomorrow.
> >
> > Reto
>
> Its not clear if that will change the binary distribution so just a
> quick note to remind about that as it also needs to note all the
> licenses it uses.
> (i did check on you dev list and it doesn't look like the respin has
> happen yet so hopefully that isn't an inconvenience)
>
>
Yes I adapted the NOTICE of the launcher (i.e. the one in the binary
distro) as follows:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/platform.launcher.tdb/NOTICE?view=markup
Cheers,
Reto
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
<me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > ...The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are
>> releasing a
>> > few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience but
>> > could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
>> > pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and notice
>> > files....
>>
>> I agree with that, but it doesn't require cutting a new release IMO -
>> releasing with an open issue in Clerezza's jira about this would be
>> fine from my Clerezza mentor's point of view.
>>
>
> I've added a README in the root, see
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/README.txt
>
> Also I've added a project to create an assembly of that contains only the
> sources of the modules of an active build project, it is here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/clerezza-jar-resource-bundle/
>
> With these I plan to prepare a new release candidate tomorrow.
>
> Reto
Its not clear if that will change the binary distribution so just a
quick note to remind about that as it also needs to note all the
licenses it uses.
(i did check on you dev list and it doesn't look like the respin has
happen yet so hopefully that isn't an inconvenience)
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me...@farewellutopia.com>.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > ...The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are
> releasing a
> > few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience but
> > could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
> > pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and notice
> > files....
>
> I agree with that, but it doesn't require cutting a new release IMO -
> releasing with an open issue in Clerezza's jira about this would be
> fine from my Clerezza mentor's point of view.
>
I've added a README in the root, see
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/README.txt
Also I've added a project to create an assembly of that contains only the
sources of the modules of an active build project, it is here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/clerezza-jar-resource-bundle/
With these I plan to prepare a new release candidate tomorrow.
Reto
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me...@farewellutopia.com>.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > ...The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are
> releasing a
> > few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience but
> > could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
> > pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and notice
> > files....
>
> I agree with that, but it doesn't require cutting a new release IMO -
> releasing with an open issue in Clerezza's jira about this would be
> fine from my Clerezza mentor's point of view.
>
I've added a README in the root, see
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/README.txt
Also I've added a project to create an assembly of that contains only the
sources of the modules of an active build project, it is here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/clerezza/trunk/parent/clerezza-jar-resource-bundle/
With these I plan to prepare a new release candidate tomorrow.
Reto
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me...@farewellutopia.com>.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > ...The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are
> releasing a
> > few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience but
> > could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
> > pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and notice
> > files....
>
> I agree with that, but it doesn't require cutting a new release IMO -
> releasing with an open issue in Clerezza's jira about this would be
> fine from my Clerezza mentor's point of view.
>
There was another problem with the last source release candidate: it
includes the modules which aren't part of the release profile, I'm
currently working on an assembly descriptor which fixes this.
Cheers,
Reto
>
> -Bertrand (haven't found time to review the release yet, hopefully
> later this week)
>
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are releasing a
> few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience but
> could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
> pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and notice
> files....
I agree with that, but it doesn't require cutting a new release IMO -
releasing with an open issue in Clerezza's jira about this would be
fine from my Clerezza mentor's point of view.
-Bertrand (haven't found time to review the release yet, hopefully
later this week)
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
That would do it for me, but its been a contentious issue in the
Incubator so you may want to try to find one more person who says
they'd vote +1, another mentor or something, before going to the
trouble of a respin like that.
...ant
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation and pointers.
>
> The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are releasing a
> few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience but
> could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
> pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and notice
> files.
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> The issue is that ASF release artifacts should have in their root a
>> LICENSE file which includes all the licensing details of the artifact.
>>
>> This source release artifact,
>> clerezza-0.2-incubating-source-release.zip, does have a LICENSE file
>> at its root, but that file has no mention that the source distribution
>> also contains YUI which is BSD licensed.
>>
>> Ok you have now pointed out that the BSD license is in fact included
>> in the source distribution in a file named
>> web.resources.yui\LICENSE.bsd.yahoo.txt, but that was not at all
>> obvious and i didn't find it when looking for the license.
>>
>> The traditional approach for ASF releases is to copy all the licenses
>> into the top-level LICENSE file so that they are very easy to see.
>> Some projects don't like that so have the third party licenses
>> somewhere else. Some people say if you use the somewhere else approach
>> then the top level LICENSE must at least have a link to them, i don't
>> know if that is strictly required perhaps if they are all collected
>> somewhere obvious like a top-level folder named licenses that might be
>> enough too. But just having all the license scattered about in the
>> distribution in no obvious place and with no high level doc pointing
>> out that they exist is not enough IMHO.
>>
>> There was some discussion about this in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-31 (which i note is still
>> open!).
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
>> <me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
>> > Thank you for reviewing the release candidate
>> >
>> > I'm not sure what the issue with the source distribution is: the
>> > module web.resources.yui mentions the yahoo copyright in the notice
>> > file and the bsd license is included.
>> >
>> > I guess this should also be the case for the launchers and thus the
>> > binary distribution zip.
>> >
>> > That the name of the binary release doesn't match the one of the
>> > source release is intended. The source release is a distribution of
>> > many components, the binary release is a release of the launcher which
>> > contains most but not all the components.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Reto
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Hi all,
>> >>>
>> >>> Clerezza 0.2 is ready for release. This will be our first incubator
>> >>> release.
>> >>>
>> >>> We had a preliminary vote in the PPMC, which has been accepted, the +1
>> >>> votes include the one from IPMC member Tommaso Teofili.
>> >>>
>> >>> The PPMC vote result is here:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-clerezza-dev/201201.mbox/%3CCALvhUEXQVsKro6jRBY06%2B2fh6TGv5yBkAGd3Eoj6mqiQ%3DCe1hQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> >>>
>> >>> We need two more IPMC votes to pass.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please vote on releasing Clerezza parent and all the modules in the
>> >>> release profile.
>> >>>
>> >>> A zip with the source distribution and one with an executable binary
>> >>> distribution (jena tdb based launcher) are available with their
>> >>> signatures at:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201201/
>> >>>
>> >>> In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.
>> >>>
>> >>> Keys:
>> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/clerezza/trunk/KEYS
>> >>>
>> >>> The vote is open for 72 hours, or until we get the needed number of
>> >>> votes
>> >>> (3 +1).
>> >>>
>> >>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating
>> >>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>> >>>
>> >>> To learn more about Apache Clerezza visit:
>> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza/
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> Reto
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately there are some licensing issues.
>> >>
>> >> The source distribution includes YUI which is BSD licensed so this
>> >> needs to be mentioned and the BSD license needs to be included in the
>> >> source distribution LICENSE file.
>> >>
>> >> There are similar issues with the binary distribution which includes
>> >> many third party artifacts with various licenses and none of those are
>> >> mentioned anywhere that i could find. Its a big release so I've not
>> >> checked the details, I think you need to do a legal audit of the
>> >> release artifacts to find whats there and what needs to be added to
>> >> the LICENSE and NOTICE files. Ask your mentors or here on general@ if
>> >> you're not sure how to do it.
>> >>
>> >> Otherwise the release all looks pretty good a couple of minor comments
>> >> are:
>> >> - the NOTICE file date has 2011 and that could be changed to 2012.
>> >> - the name of the binary distribution artifact doesn't match the name
>> >> of the source artifact or include the release version
>> >>
>> >> ...ant
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> 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
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are releasing a
> few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience but
> could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
> pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and notice
> files....
I agree with that, but it doesn't require cutting a new release IMO -
releasing with an open issue in Clerezza's jira about this would be
fine from my Clerezza mentor's point of view.
-Bertrand (haven't found time to review the release yet, hopefully
later this week)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the explanation and pointers.
The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are releasing a
few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience but
could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and notice
files.
Cheers,
Reto
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> The issue is that ASF release artifacts should have in their root a
> LICENSE file which includes all the licensing details of the artifact.
>
> This source release artifact,
> clerezza-0.2-incubating-source-release.zip, does have a LICENSE file
> at its root, but that file has no mention that the source distribution
> also contains YUI which is BSD licensed.
>
> Ok you have now pointed out that the BSD license is in fact included
> in the source distribution in a file named
> web.resources.yui\LICENSE.bsd.yahoo.txt, but that was not at all
> obvious and i didn't find it when looking for the license.
>
> The traditional approach for ASF releases is to copy all the licenses
> into the top-level LICENSE file so that they are very easy to see.
> Some projects don't like that so have the third party licenses
> somewhere else. Some people say if you use the somewhere else approach
> then the top level LICENSE must at least have a link to them, i don't
> know if that is strictly required perhaps if they are all collected
> somewhere obvious like a top-level folder named licenses that might be
> enough too. But just having all the license scattered about in the
> distribution in no obvious place and with no high level doc pointing
> out that they exist is not enough IMHO.
>
> There was some discussion about this in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-31 (which i note is still
> open!).
>
> ...ant
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> <me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
> > Thank you for reviewing the release candidate
> >
> > I'm not sure what the issue with the source distribution is: the
> > module web.resources.yui mentions the yahoo copyright in the notice
> > file and the bsd license is included.
> >
> > I guess this should also be the case for the launchers and thus the
> > binary distribution zip.
> >
> > That the name of the binary release doesn't match the one of the
> > source release is intended. The source release is a distribution of
> > many components, the binary release is a release of the launcher which
> > contains most but not all the components.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Reto
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Clerezza 0.2 is ready for release. This will be our first incubator
> release.
> >>>
> >>> We had a preliminary vote in the PPMC, which has been accepted, the +1
> >>> votes include the one from IPMC member Tommaso Teofili.
> >>>
> >>> The PPMC vote result is here:
> >>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-clerezza-dev/201201.mbox/%3CCALvhUEXQVsKro6jRBY06%2B2fh6TGv5yBkAGd3Eoj6mqiQ%3DCe1hQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>>
> >>> We need two more IPMC votes to pass.
> >>>
> >>> Please vote on releasing Clerezza parent and all the modules in the
> >>> release profile.
> >>>
> >>> A zip with the source distribution and one with an executable binary
> >>> distribution (jena tdb based launcher) are available with their
> >>> signatures at:
> >>>
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201201/
> >>>
> >>> In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.
> >>>
> >>> Keys:
> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/clerezza/trunk/KEYS
> >>>
> >>> The vote is open for 72 hours, or until we get the needed number of
> votes
> >>> (3 +1).
> >>>
> >>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating
> >>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >>>
> >>> To learn more about Apache Clerezza visit:
> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza/
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Reto
> >>>
> >>
> >> Unfortunately there are some licensing issues.
> >>
> >> The source distribution includes YUI which is BSD licensed so this
> >> needs to be mentioned and the BSD license needs to be included in the
> >> source distribution LICENSE file.
> >>
> >> There are similar issues with the binary distribution which includes
> >> many third party artifacts with various licenses and none of those are
> >> mentioned anywhere that i could find. Its a big release so I've not
> >> checked the details, I think you need to do a legal audit of the
> >> release artifacts to find whats there and what needs to be added to
> >> the LICENSE and NOTICE files. Ask your mentors or here on general@ if
> >> you're not sure how to do it.
> >>
> >> Otherwise the release all looks pretty good a couple of minor comments
> are:
> >> - the NOTICE file date has 2011 and that could be changed to 2012.
> >> - the name of the binary distribution artifact doesn't match the name
> >> of the source artifact or include the release version
> >>
> >> ...ant
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the explanation and pointers.
The reason the license files is not at the root is that we are releasing a
few dozen modules which are released together for voting convenience but
could also released separately. I suggest to add a note in the readme
pointing out that the some modules contain additional license and notice
files.
Cheers,
Reto
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> The issue is that ASF release artifacts should have in their root a
> LICENSE file which includes all the licensing details of the artifact.
>
> This source release artifact,
> clerezza-0.2-incubating-source-release.zip, does have a LICENSE file
> at its root, but that file has no mention that the source distribution
> also contains YUI which is BSD licensed.
>
> Ok you have now pointed out that the BSD license is in fact included
> in the source distribution in a file named
> web.resources.yui\LICENSE.bsd.yahoo.txt, but that was not at all
> obvious and i didn't find it when looking for the license.
>
> The traditional approach for ASF releases is to copy all the licenses
> into the top-level LICENSE file so that they are very easy to see.
> Some projects don't like that so have the third party licenses
> somewhere else. Some people say if you use the somewhere else approach
> then the top level LICENSE must at least have a link to them, i don't
> know if that is strictly required perhaps if they are all collected
> somewhere obvious like a top-level folder named licenses that might be
> enough too. But just having all the license scattered about in the
> distribution in no obvious place and with no high level doc pointing
> out that they exist is not enough IMHO.
>
> There was some discussion about this in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-31 (which i note is still
> open!).
>
> ...ant
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> <me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
> > Thank you for reviewing the release candidate
> >
> > I'm not sure what the issue with the source distribution is: the
> > module web.resources.yui mentions the yahoo copyright in the notice
> > file and the bsd license is included.
> >
> > I guess this should also be the case for the launchers and thus the
> > binary distribution zip.
> >
> > That the name of the binary release doesn't match the one of the
> > source release is intended. The source release is a distribution of
> > many components, the binary release is a release of the launcher which
> > contains most but not all the components.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Reto
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Clerezza 0.2 is ready for release. This will be our first incubator
> release.
> >>>
> >>> We had a preliminary vote in the PPMC, which has been accepted, the +1
> >>> votes include the one from IPMC member Tommaso Teofili.
> >>>
> >>> The PPMC vote result is here:
> >>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-clerezza-dev/201201.mbox/%3CCALvhUEXQVsKro6jRBY06%2B2fh6TGv5yBkAGd3Eoj6mqiQ%3DCe1hQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>>
> >>> We need two more IPMC votes to pass.
> >>>
> >>> Please vote on releasing Clerezza parent and all the modules in the
> >>> release profile.
> >>>
> >>> A zip with the source distribution and one with an executable binary
> >>> distribution (jena tdb based launcher) are available with their
> >>> signatures at:
> >>>
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201201/
> >>>
> >>> In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.
> >>>
> >>> Keys:
> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/clerezza/trunk/KEYS
> >>>
> >>> The vote is open for 72 hours, or until we get the needed number of
> votes
> >>> (3 +1).
> >>>
> >>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating
> >>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >>>
> >>> To learn more about Apache Clerezza visit:
> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza/
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Reto
> >>>
> >>
> >> Unfortunately there are some licensing issues.
> >>
> >> The source distribution includes YUI which is BSD licensed so this
> >> needs to be mentioned and the BSD license needs to be included in the
> >> source distribution LICENSE file.
> >>
> >> There are similar issues with the binary distribution which includes
> >> many third party artifacts with various licenses and none of those are
> >> mentioned anywhere that i could find. Its a big release so I've not
> >> checked the details, I think you need to do a legal audit of the
> >> release artifacts to find whats there and what needs to be added to
> >> the LICENSE and NOTICE files. Ask your mentors or here on general@ if
> >> you're not sure how to do it.
> >>
> >> Otherwise the release all looks pretty good a couple of minor comments
> are:
> >> - the NOTICE file date has 2011 and that could be changed to 2012.
> >> - the name of the binary distribution artifact doesn't match the name
> >> of the source artifact or include the release version
> >>
> >> ...ant
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
The issue is that ASF release artifacts should have in their root a
LICENSE file which includes all the licensing details of the artifact.
This source release artifact,
clerezza-0.2-incubating-source-release.zip, does have a LICENSE file
at its root, but that file has no mention that the source distribution
also contains YUI which is BSD licensed.
Ok you have now pointed out that the BSD license is in fact included
in the source distribution in a file named
web.resources.yui\LICENSE.bsd.yahoo.txt, but that was not at all
obvious and i didn't find it when looking for the license.
The traditional approach for ASF releases is to copy all the licenses
into the top-level LICENSE file so that they are very easy to see.
Some projects don't like that so have the third party licenses
somewhere else. Some people say if you use the somewhere else approach
then the top level LICENSE must at least have a link to them, i don't
know if that is strictly required perhaps if they are all collected
somewhere obvious like a top-level folder named licenses that might be
enough too. But just having all the license scattered about in the
distribution in no obvious place and with no high level doc pointing
out that they exist is not enough IMHO.
There was some discussion about this in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-31 (which i note is still
open!).
...ant
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
<me...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
> Thank you for reviewing the release candidate
>
> I'm not sure what the issue with the source distribution is: the
> module web.resources.yui mentions the yahoo copyright in the notice
> file and the bsd license is included.
>
> I guess this should also be the case for the launchers and thus the
> binary distribution zip.
>
> That the name of the binary release doesn't match the one of the
> source release is intended. The source release is a distribution of
> many components, the binary release is a release of the launcher which
> contains most but not all the components.
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Clerezza 0.2 is ready for release. This will be our first incubator release.
>>>
>>> We had a preliminary vote in the PPMC, which has been accepted, the +1
>>> votes include the one from IPMC member Tommaso Teofili.
>>>
>>> The PPMC vote result is here:
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-clerezza-dev/201201.mbox/%3CCALvhUEXQVsKro6jRBY06%2B2fh6TGv5yBkAGd3Eoj6mqiQ%3DCe1hQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>> We need two more IPMC votes to pass.
>>>
>>> Please vote on releasing Clerezza parent and all the modules in the
>>> release profile.
>>>
>>> A zip with the source distribution and one with an executable binary
>>> distribution (jena tdb based launcher) are available with their
>>> signatures at:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201201/
>>>
>>> In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.
>>>
>>> Keys:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/clerezza/trunk/KEYS
>>>
>>> The vote is open for 72 hours, or until we get the needed number of votes
>>> (3 +1).
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating
>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>
>>> To learn more about Apache Clerezza visit:
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza/
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Reto
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately there are some licensing issues.
>>
>> The source distribution includes YUI which is BSD licensed so this
>> needs to be mentioned and the BSD license needs to be included in the
>> source distribution LICENSE file.
>>
>> There are similar issues with the binary distribution which includes
>> many third party artifacts with various licenses and none of those are
>> mentioned anywhere that i could find. Its a big release so I've not
>> checked the details, I think you need to do a legal audit of the
>> release artifacts to find whats there and what needs to be added to
>> the LICENSE and NOTICE files. Ask your mentors or here on general@ if
>> you're not sure how to do it.
>>
>> Otherwise the release all looks pretty good a couple of minor comments are:
>> - the NOTICE file date has 2011 and that could be changed to 2012.
>> - the name of the binary distribution artifact doesn't match the name
>> of the source artifact or include the release version
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me...@farewellutopia.com>.
Thank you for reviewing the release candidate
I'm not sure what the issue with the source distribution is: the
module web.resources.yui mentions the yahoo copyright in the notice
file and the bsd license is included.
I guess this should also be the case for the launchers and thus the
binary distribution zip.
That the name of the binary release doesn't match the one of the
source release is intended. The source release is a distribution of
many components, the binary release is a release of the launcher which
contains most but not all the components.
Cheers,
Reto
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Clerezza 0.2 is ready for release. This will be our first incubator release.
>>
>> We had a preliminary vote in the PPMC, which has been accepted, the +1
>> votes include the one from IPMC member Tommaso Teofili.
>>
>> The PPMC vote result is here:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-clerezza-dev/201201.mbox/%3CCALvhUEXQVsKro6jRBY06%2B2fh6TGv5yBkAGd3Eoj6mqiQ%3DCe1hQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>> We need two more IPMC votes to pass.
>>
>> Please vote on releasing Clerezza parent and all the modules in the
>> release profile.
>>
>> A zip with the source distribution and one with an executable binary
>> distribution (jena tdb based launcher) are available with their
>> signatures at:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201201/
>>
>> In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.
>>
>> Keys:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/clerezza/trunk/KEYS
>>
>> The vote is open for 72 hours, or until we get the needed number of votes
>> (3 +1).
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> To learn more about Apache Clerezza visit:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Reto
>>
>
> Unfortunately there are some licensing issues.
>
> The source distribution includes YUI which is BSD licensed so this
> needs to be mentioned and the BSD license needs to be included in the
> source distribution LICENSE file.
>
> There are similar issues with the binary distribution which includes
> many third party artifacts with various licenses and none of those are
> mentioned anywhere that i could find. Its a big release so I've not
> checked the details, I think you need to do a legal audit of the
> release artifacts to find whats there and what needs to be added to
> the LICENSE and NOTICE files. Ask your mentors or here on general@ if
> you're not sure how to do it.
>
> Otherwise the release all looks pretty good a couple of minor comments are:
> - the NOTICE file date has 2011 and that could be changed to 2012.
> - the name of the binary distribution artifact doesn't match the name
> of the source artifact or include the release version
>
> ...ant
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me...@farewellutopia.com>.
Thank you for reviewing the release candidate
I'm not sure what the issue with the source distribution is: the
module web.resources.yui mentions the yahoo copyright in the notice
file and the bsd license is included.
I guess this should also be the case for the launchers and thus the
binary distribution zip.
That the name of the binary release doesn't match the one of the
source release is intended. The source release is a distribution of
many components, the binary release is a release of the launcher which
contains most but not all the components.
Cheers,
Reto
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Clerezza 0.2 is ready for release. This will be our first incubator release.
>>
>> We had a preliminary vote in the PPMC, which has been accepted, the +1
>> votes include the one from IPMC member Tommaso Teofili.
>>
>> The PPMC vote result is here:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-clerezza-dev/201201.mbox/%3CCALvhUEXQVsKro6jRBY06%2B2fh6TGv5yBkAGd3Eoj6mqiQ%3DCe1hQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>> We need two more IPMC votes to pass.
>>
>> Please vote on releasing Clerezza parent and all the modules in the
>> release profile.
>>
>> A zip with the source distribution and one with an executable binary
>> distribution (jena tdb based launcher) are available with their
>> signatures at:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201201/
>>
>> In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.
>>
>> Keys:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/clerezza/trunk/KEYS
>>
>> The vote is open for 72 hours, or until we get the needed number of votes
>> (3 +1).
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> To learn more about Apache Clerezza visit:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Reto
>>
>
> Unfortunately there are some licensing issues.
>
> The source distribution includes YUI which is BSD licensed so this
> needs to be mentioned and the BSD license needs to be included in the
> source distribution LICENSE file.
>
> There are similar issues with the binary distribution which includes
> many third party artifacts with various licenses and none of those are
> mentioned anywhere that i could find. Its a big release so I've not
> checked the details, I think you need to do a legal audit of the
> release artifacts to find whats there and what needs to be added to
> the LICENSE and NOTICE files. Ask your mentors or here on general@ if
> you're not sure how to do it.
>
> Otherwise the release all looks pretty good a couple of minor comments are:
> - the NOTICE file date has 2011 and that could be changed to 2012.
> - the name of the binary distribution artifact doesn't match the name
> of the source artifact or include the release version
>
> ...ant
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC4)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Clerezza 0.2 is ready for release. This will be our first incubator release.
>
> We had a preliminary vote in the PPMC, which has been accepted, the +1
> votes include the one from IPMC member Tommaso Teofili.
>
> The PPMC vote result is here:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-clerezza-dev/201201.mbox/%3CCALvhUEXQVsKro6jRBY06%2B2fh6TGv5yBkAGd3Eoj6mqiQ%3DCe1hQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> We need two more IPMC votes to pass.
>
> Please vote on releasing Clerezza parent and all the modules in the
> release profile.
>
> A zip with the source distribution and one with an executable binary
> distribution (jena tdb based launcher) are available with their
> signatures at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201201/
>
> In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.
>
> Keys:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/clerezza/trunk/KEYS
>
> The vote is open for 72 hours, or until we get the needed number of votes
> (3 +1).
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> To learn more about Apache Clerezza visit:
> http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza/
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
Unfortunately there are some licensing issues.
The source distribution includes YUI which is BSD licensed so this
needs to be mentioned and the BSD license needs to be included in the
source distribution LICENSE file.
There are similar issues with the binary distribution which includes
many third party artifacts with various licenses and none of those are
mentioned anywhere that i could find. Its a big release so I've not
checked the details, I think you need to do a legal audit of the
release artifacts to find whats there and what needs to be added to
the LICENSE and NOTICE files. Ask your mentors or here on general@ if
you're not sure how to do it.
Otherwise the release all looks pretty good a couple of minor comments are:
- the NOTICE file date has 2011 and that could be changed to 2012.
- the name of the binary distribution artifact doesn't match the name
of the source artifact or include the release version
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org