[CANCEL] [Vote] RC01 for release of Apache Olingo OData 4.0.0-beta-01

["Bolz, Michael" <mi...@sap.com>]

Hi,

I cancel this vote and start a new one for the second release candidate.

Kind regards,
Michael

On 16.09.2014, at 10:48, Bolz, Michael <mi...@sap.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 
> I checked the dependencies of:
> http://people.apache.org/~mibo/olingo4/4.0.0-beta-01-RC01/Olingo-OData-Clie
> nt-for-Android-4.0.0-beta-01-RC01-lib.zip
> http://people.apache.org/~mibo/olingo4/4.0.0-beta-01-RC01/Olingo-OData-Clie
> nt-for-Java-4.0.0-beta-01-RC01-lib.zip
> http://people.apache.org/~mibo/olingo4/4.0.0-beta-01-RC01/Olingo-OData-Serv
> er-for-Java-4.0.0-beta-01-RC01-lib.zip
> 
> 
> Were we have following licenses:
> # Apache License Version 2.0
> # The BSD License  (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php)
> # The MIT License: MIT License
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php)
> # The CDDL License: COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL)
> Version 1.0  (http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html)
> # The License: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (BSD-3-Clause)
> (http://treelayout.googlecode.com/files/LICENSE.TXT)
> # The License: The BSD License  (http://www.antlr.org/license.html)
> 
> 
> 
> For all none Apache licenses it is allowed to redistribute the binary if
> the original license/notice it provided within the re-distribution.
> Which should be fulfilled by adding them into the LICENSE file of our
> distribution zip file (IMHO).
> 
> But such license and legal questions are really tricky.
> So I'am glad of any clarification and support about this to do it right
> and at the end to provide a valid Rcxx/Final Release.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Michael
> 
> On 16.09.14 08:43, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <il...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 16/09/2014 06:23, Bolz, Michael wrote:
>>> Hi together,
>>> 
>>> For the release of "Apache Olingo OData 4.0.0-beta-01" Java library
>>> parts
>>> the current voting state is as follows:
>>> 
>>> 2x +1 (sklevenz, mibo)
>>> 0x -1
>>> 
>>> And a discussion about NOTICE and LICENSE file updates for "slf4j"
>>> dependency.
>> 
>> For the sake of clarity: it not just about SLF4J, it's about reviewing
>> any non-ALv2 dependency to check if notice is required and, if so, to
>> add it to the relevant NOTICE file(s).
>> 
>>> It would be nice to get more votes, discussions or opinions so we can
>>> step
>>> forward to a release or second release candidate.
>>> So please share your vote or opinion  ;o)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Michael
>>>