You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> on 2006/09/07 14:16:25 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Hi Jason,
Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1 1.0-
oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete
bootstrap.
TTFN,
-bd-
On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which
> is my fault.
>
> But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've
> already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making
> changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other
> enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN
> logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT.
>
> I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then
> voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very
> poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that
> there is no confusion as to which is which.
>
> In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release
> is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then
> a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the
> 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for
> minor fix iterations.
>
> While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the
> Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has run
> we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I don't
> think this needs to be or should be the case for other projects. I
> believe it is much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then
> vote to make the release and then make the release.
>
> Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here.
> This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I
> don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still
> recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper
> oversight and vote is 1.1.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released?
>> We need to keep the version number the same.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from
>>> Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote
>>> for 1.1 soonish.
>>>
>>> Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created
>>> the release before the vote.
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>> I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if
>>>>>> I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a
>>>>>> community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we
>>>>>> are addressing that responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software
>>>>>> license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has
>>>>>> been a bit of an unknown to me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> Product: Clover
>>>>>> License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x
>>>>>> Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT
>>>>>> Expiry: Never
>>>>>> Maintenance Expiry: Never
>>>>>> Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0
>>>>>> Name: Jason Dillon
>>>>>> Org: Apache Geronimo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the
>>>>>> Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not
>>>>>> assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party."
>>>>>> IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can
>>>>>> you explain what this is about?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants
>>>>> licenses for open source projects. I used the license they
>>>>> granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is
>>>>> shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to
>>>>> simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the
>>>>> plugin.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry..
>>>> I Am Not A Lawyer
>>>> And Don't Want To Be
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also
>>>> don't think it should be public in our source tree... I
>>>> understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure
>>>> seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license
>>>> agreement... Can you convince me otherwise?
>>>>
>>>> --kevan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Young whippersnapper...I turn 40 on Saturday...now where is that walker
of mine...
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>
>> though I turned 30 today so not sure how much work I will get done in
>> my old age.
>
> Happy birthday, Jason! Isn't it nice to be on the other side of the
> fence? ;-) (I'm on that side, too)
>
> Jacek
>
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 9/20/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> though I turned 30 today so not sure how much work I will get done in
> my old age.
Happy birthday, Jason! Isn't it nice to be on the other side of the
fence? ;-) (I'm on that side, too)
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Am I correct in assuming that all votes must be re-cast since the
original vote was canceled? If so, then it would probably be helpful to
start a new thread to clarify that all votes in the previous (this)
thread must be recast and to restate the question (the thread at this
point no longer included the original vote question).
If you're not asking for a new vote and the original votes do still
count then please excuse the noise of this note.
Just in case, here's my vote (again) ...
[+0] Um, I don't have an opinion
Joe
Jason Dillon wrote:
> I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the artifacts
> thats I published to:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/geronimo/
> genesis/
>
> This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but not
> the artifact (its empty now).
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1
>> 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete
>> bootstrap.
>>
>> TTFN,
>>
>> -bd-
>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>
>>> Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which is
>>> my fault.
>>>
>>> But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've
>>> already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making
>>> changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other
>>> enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN
>>> logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT.
>>>
>>> I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then
>>> voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very
>>> poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that
>>> there is no confusion as to which is which.
>>>
>>> In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release
>>> is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then a
>>> new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the 1.0
>>> bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for minor
>>> fix iterations.
>>>
>>> While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the
>>> Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has run
>>> we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I don't
>>> think this needs to be or should be the case for other projects. I
>>> believe it is much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then
>>> vote to make the release and then make the release.
>>>
>>> Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here.
>>> This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I
>>> don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still
>>> recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper
>>> oversight and vote is 1.1.
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released? We
>>>> need to keep the version number the same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from
>>>>> Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for
>>>>> 1.1 soonish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created
>>>>> the release before the vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> --jason
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm
>>>>>>>> being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a
>>>>>>>> community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are
>>>>>>>> addressing that responsibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software
>>>>>>>> license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has
>>>>>>>> been a bit of an unknown to me...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> Product: Clover
>>>>>>>> License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x
>>>>>>>> Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT
>>>>>>>> Expiry: Never
>>>>>>>> Maintenance Expiry: Never
>>>>>>>> Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0
>>>>>>>> Name: Jason Dillon
>>>>>>>> Org: Apache Geronimo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the
>>>>>>>> Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign
>>>>>>>> or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL
>>>>>>>> ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you
>>>>>>>> explain what this is about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants
>>>>>>> licenses for open source projects. I used the license they
>>>>>>> granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared
>>>>>>> configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the
>>>>>>> configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry..
>>>>>> I Am Not A Lawyer
>>>>>> And Don't Want To Be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't
>>>>>> think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that
>>>>>> this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that
>>>>>> we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you
>>>>>> convince me otherwise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
+1
david jencks
On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the
> artifacts thats I published to:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/
> geronimo/genesis/
>
> This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but
> not the artifact (its empty now).
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1
>> 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a
>> complete bootstrap.
>>
>> TTFN,
>>
>> -bd-
>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>
>>> Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which
>>> is my fault.
>>>
>>> But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released.
>>> I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been
>>> making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few
>>> other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at
>>> the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT.
>>>
>>> I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then
>>> voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is
>>> very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so
>>> that there is no confusion as to which is which.
>>>
>>> In almost every other software project I have worked on, a
>>> release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made
>>> and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to
>>> keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common
>>> practice for minor fix iterations.
>>>
>>> While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the
>>> Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has
>>> run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I
>>> don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other
>>> projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest
>>> SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release.
>>>
>>> Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here.
>>> This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I
>>> don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I
>>> still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper
>>> oversight and vote is 1.1.
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released?
>>>> We need to keep the version number the same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>> Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits
>>>>> from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new
>>>>> vote for 1.1 soonish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and
>>>>> created the release before the vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> --jason
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>> I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if
>>>>>>>> I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as
>>>>>>>> a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure
>>>>>>>> we are addressing that responsibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software
>>>>>>>> license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis
>>>>>>>> has been a bit of an unknown to me...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> Product: Clover
>>>>>>>> License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x
>>>>>>>> Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT
>>>>>>>> Expiry: Never
>>>>>>>> Maintenance Expiry: Never
>>>>>>>> Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0
>>>>>>>> Name: Jason Dillon
>>>>>>>> Org: Apache Geronimo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy
>>>>>>>> the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not
>>>>>>>> assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third
>>>>>>>> party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for
>>>>>>>> concern. Can you explain what this is about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants
>>>>>>> licenses for open source projects. I used the license they
>>>>>>> granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is
>>>>>>> shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to
>>>>>>> simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run
>>>>>>> the plugin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry..
>>>>>> I Am Not A Lawyer
>>>>>> And Don't Want To Be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also
>>>>>> don't think it should be public in our source tree... I
>>>>>> understand that this may make things more difficult, but it
>>>>>> sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license
>>>>>> agreement... Can you convince me otherwise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Yup, I will re-tally soon. Been busy with gbuild, learning puppet,
yam, yum, vmware, blah, blah...
though I turned 30 today so not sure how much work I will get done in
my old age.
--jason
On Sep 19, 2006, at 4:14 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Time to call this vote, I think. Alan or Jason?
> --kevan
> On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Thanks Jason for getting this rolling again.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> ALan
>>
>>
>> On Sep 12, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>
>>> I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the
>>> artifacts thats I published to:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/
>>> geronimo/genesis/
>>>
>>> This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but
>>> not the artifact (its empty now).
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>
>>>> Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1,
>>>> 1.0.1 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a
>>>> complete bootstrap.
>>>>
>>>> TTFN,
>>>>
>>>> -bd-
>>>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back...
>>>>> which is my fault.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released.
>>>>> I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been
>>>>> making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few
>>>>> other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at
>>>>> the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then
>>>>> voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is
>>>>> very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1
>>>>> so that there is no confusion as to which is which.
>>>>>
>>>>> In almost every other software project I have worked on, a
>>>>> release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is
>>>>> made and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you
>>>>> wanted to keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2
>>>>> is common practice for minor fix iterations.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the
>>>>> Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has
>>>>> run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I
>>>>> don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other
>>>>> projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest
>>>>> SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much
>>>>> here. This is an internal project used to support internal
>>>>> builds. I don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even
>>>>> care. So, I still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be
>>>>> released w/proper oversight and vote is 1.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> --jason
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never
>>>>>> released? We need to keep the version number the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>> Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits
>>>>>>> from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a
>>>>>>> new vote for 1.1 soonish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and
>>>>>>> created the release before the vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --jason
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize
>>>>>>>>>> if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a
>>>>>>>>>> responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm
>>>>>>>>>> trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software
>>>>>>>>>> license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis
>>>>>>>>>> has been a bit of an unknown to me...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> Product: Clover
>>>>>>>>>> License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x
>>>>>>>>>> Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT
>>>>>>>>>> Expiry: Never
>>>>>>>>>> Maintenance Expiry: Never
>>>>>>>>>> Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0
>>>>>>>>>> Name: Jason Dillon
>>>>>>>>>> Org: Apache Geronimo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy
>>>>>>>>>> the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may
>>>>>>>>>> not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third
>>>>>>>>>> party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for
>>>>>>>>>> concern. Can you explain what this is about?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover
>>>>>>>>> grants licenses for open source projects. I used the
>>>>>>>>> license they granted to me to be used to run the site
>>>>>>>>> builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked
>>>>>>>>> into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which
>>>>>>>>> need it to run the plugin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry..
>>>>>>>> I Am Not A Lawyer
>>>>>>>> And Don't Want To Be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also
>>>>>>>> don't think it should be public in our source tree... I
>>>>>>>> understand that this may make things more difficult, but it
>>>>>>>> sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the
>>>>>>>> license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
[VOTE RESULT] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Sorry for the delay, here are the results (for both rounds)...
ROUND 1
+1: jason, jacek, gnodet, jeff, dblevins, prasad, bsynder, djencks,
gianny
+0: joe, paul
ROUND 2
+1: bill, alan, kevan, david, gianny
+0: rick, joe
* * *
I will copy the artifacts from my local user repo to m2-ibiblio-rsync-
repository and request a sync.
--jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
Time to call this vote, I think. Alan or Jason?
--kevan
On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks Jason for getting this rolling again.
>
>
> Regards,
> ALan
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the
>> artifacts thats I published to:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/
>> geronimo/genesis/
>>
>> This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but
>> not the artifact (its empty now).
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jason,
>>>
>>> Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1
>>> 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a
>>> complete bootstrap.
>>>
>>> TTFN,
>>>
>>> -bd-
>>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back...
>>>> which is my fault.
>>>>
>>>> But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released.
>>>> I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been
>>>> making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few
>>>> other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at
>>>> the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT.
>>>>
>>>> I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then
>>>> voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is
>>>> very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so
>>>> that there is no confusion as to which is which.
>>>>
>>>> In almost every other software project I have worked on, a
>>>> release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is
>>>> made and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you
>>>> wanted to keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2
>>>> is common practice for minor fix iterations.
>>>>
>>>> While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the
>>>> Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has
>>>> run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I
>>>> don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other
>>>> projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest
>>>> SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release.
>>>>
>>>> Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here.
>>>> This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I
>>>> don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I
>>>> still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/
>>>> proper oversight and vote is 1.1.
>>>>
>>>> --jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never
>>>>> released? We need to keep the version number the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>> Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits
>>>>>> from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new
>>>>>> vote for 1.1 soonish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and
>>>>>> created the release before the vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if
>>>>>>>>> I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as
>>>>>>>>> a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure
>>>>>>>>> we are addressing that responsibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software
>>>>>>>>> license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis
>>>>>>>>> has been a bit of an unknown to me...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> Product: Clover
>>>>>>>>> License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x
>>>>>>>>> Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT
>>>>>>>>> Expiry: Never
>>>>>>>>> Maintenance Expiry: Never
>>>>>>>>> Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0
>>>>>>>>> Name: Jason Dillon
>>>>>>>>> Org: Apache Geronimo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy
>>>>>>>>> the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may
>>>>>>>>> not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third
>>>>>>>>> party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for
>>>>>>>>> concern. Can you explain what this is about?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants
>>>>>>>> licenses for open source projects. I used the license they
>>>>>>>> granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is
>>>>>>>> shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to
>>>>>>>> simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run
>>>>>>>> the plugin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry..
>>>>>>> I Am Not A Lawyer
>>>>>>> And Don't Want To Be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also
>>>>>>> don't think it should be public in our source tree... I
>>>>>>> understand that this may make things more difficult, but it
>>>>>>> sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the
>>>>>>> license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Posted by Gianny Damour <gi...@optusnet.com.au>.
+1
Gianny
On 14/09/2006, at 3:16 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> +1
>
> --kevan
>
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
+1
--kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
+1
--jason
On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks Jason for getting this rolling again.
>
>
> Regards,
> ALan
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the
>> artifacts thats I published to:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/
>> geronimo/genesis/
>>
>> This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but
>> not the artifact (its empty now).
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jason,
>>>
>>> Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1
>>> 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a
>>> complete bootstrap.
>>>
>>> TTFN,
>>>
>>> -bd-
>>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back...
>>>> which is my fault.
>>>>
>>>> But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released.
>>>> I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been
>>>> making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few
>>>> other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at
>>>> the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT.
>>>>
>>>> I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then
>>>> voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is
>>>> very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so
>>>> that there is no confusion as to which is which.
>>>>
>>>> In almost every other software project I have worked on, a
>>>> release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is
>>>> made and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you
>>>> wanted to keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2
>>>> is common practice for minor fix iterations.
>>>>
>>>> While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the
>>>> Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has
>>>> run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I
>>>> don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other
>>>> projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest
>>>> SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release.
>>>>
>>>> Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here.
>>>> This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I
>>>> don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I
>>>> still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/
>>>> proper oversight and vote is 1.1.
>>>>
>>>> --jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never
>>>>> released? We need to keep the version number the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>> Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits
>>>>>> from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new
>>>>>> vote for 1.1 soonish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and
>>>>>> created the release before the vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if
>>>>>>>>> I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as
>>>>>>>>> a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure
>>>>>>>>> we are addressing that responsibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software
>>>>>>>>> license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis
>>>>>>>>> has been a bit of an unknown to me...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> Product: Clover
>>>>>>>>> License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x
>>>>>>>>> Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT
>>>>>>>>> Expiry: Never
>>>>>>>>> Maintenance Expiry: Never
>>>>>>>>> Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0
>>>>>>>>> Name: Jason Dillon
>>>>>>>>> Org: Apache Geronimo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy
>>>>>>>>> the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may
>>>>>>>>> not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third
>>>>>>>>> party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for
>>>>>>>>> concern. Can you explain what this is about?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants
>>>>>>>> licenses for open source projects. I used the license they
>>>>>>>> granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is
>>>>>>>> shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to
>>>>>>>> simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run
>>>>>>>> the plugin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry..
>>>>>>> I Am Not A Lawyer
>>>>>>> And Don't Want To Be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also
>>>>>>> don't think it should be public in our source tree... I
>>>>>>> understand that this may make things more difficult, but it
>>>>>>> sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the
>>>>>>> license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
+1
Thanks Jason for getting this rolling again.
Regards,
ALan
On Sep 12, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the
> artifacts thats I published to:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/
> geronimo/genesis/
>
> This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but
> not the artifact (its empty now).
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1
>> 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a
>> complete bootstrap.
>>
>> TTFN,
>>
>> -bd-
>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>
>>> Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which
>>> is my fault.
>>>
>>> But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released.
>>> I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been
>>> making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few
>>> other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at
>>> the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT.
>>>
>>> I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then
>>> voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is
>>> very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so
>>> that there is no confusion as to which is which.
>>>
>>> In almost every other software project I have worked on, a
>>> release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made
>>> and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to
>>> keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common
>>> practice for minor fix iterations.
>>>
>>> While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the
>>> Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has
>>> run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I
>>> don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other
>>> projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest
>>> SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release.
>>>
>>> Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here.
>>> This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I
>>> don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I
>>> still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper
>>> oversight and vote is 1.1.
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released?
>>>> We need to keep the version number the same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>> Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits
>>>>> from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new
>>>>> vote for 1.1 soonish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and
>>>>> created the release before the vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> --jason
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>> I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if
>>>>>>>> I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as
>>>>>>>> a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure
>>>>>>>> we are addressing that responsibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software
>>>>>>>> license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis
>>>>>>>> has been a bit of an unknown to me...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> Product: Clover
>>>>>>>> License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x
>>>>>>>> Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT
>>>>>>>> Expiry: Never
>>>>>>>> Maintenance Expiry: Never
>>>>>>>> Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0
>>>>>>>> Name: Jason Dillon
>>>>>>>> Org: Apache Geronimo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy
>>>>>>>> the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not
>>>>>>>> assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third
>>>>>>>> party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for
>>>>>>>> concern. Can you explain what this is about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants
>>>>>>> licenses for open source projects. I used the license they
>>>>>>> granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is
>>>>>>> shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to
>>>>>>> simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run
>>>>>>> the plugin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry..
>>>>>> I Am Not A Lawyer
>>>>>> And Don't Want To Be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also
>>>>>> don't think it should be public in our source tree... I
>>>>>> understand that this may make things more difficult, but it
>>>>>> sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license
>>>>>> agreement... Can you convince me otherwise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the
artifacts thats I published to:
http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/geronimo/
genesis/
This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but not
the artifact (its empty now).
--jason
On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1
> 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete
> bootstrap.
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
> On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which
>> is my fault.
>>
>> But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've
>> already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making
>> changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other
>> enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN
>> logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT.
>>
>> I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then
>> voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very
>> poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that
>> there is no confusion as to which is which.
>>
>> In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release
>> is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then
>> a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the
>> 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for
>> minor fix iterations.
>>
>> While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the
>> Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has
>> run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I
>> don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other
>> projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest
>> SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release.
>>
>> Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here.
>> This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I
>> don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still
>> recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper
>> oversight and vote is 1.1.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>> I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released?
>>> We need to keep the version number the same.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>> Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits
>>>> from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new
>>>> vote for 1.1 soonish.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and
>>>> created the release before the vote.
>>>>
>>>> --jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>>>> I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if
>>>>>>> I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a
>>>>>>> community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we
>>>>>>> are addressing that responsibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software
>>>>>>> license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis
>>>>>>> has been a bit of an unknown to me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> Product: Clover
>>>>>>> License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x
>>>>>>> Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT
>>>>>>> Expiry: Never
>>>>>>> Maintenance Expiry: Never
>>>>>>> Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0
>>>>>>> Name: Jason Dillon
>>>>>>> Org: Apache Geronimo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy
>>>>>>> the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not
>>>>>>> assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third
>>>>>>> party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for
>>>>>>> concern. Can you explain what this is about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants
>>>>>> licenses for open source projects. I used the license they
>>>>>> granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is
>>>>>> shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to
>>>>>> simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the
>>>>>> plugin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry..
>>>>> I Am Not A Lawyer
>>>>> And Don't Want To Be
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also
>>>>> don't think it should be public in our source tree... I
>>>>> understand that this may make things more difficult, but it
>>>>> sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license
>>>>> agreement... Can you convince me otherwise?
>>>>>
>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>