You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@servicemix.apache.org by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> on 2007/06/16 19:34:38 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)
I have have some questions that need answering before we can proceed
with the release. Please them inline below:
On 5/29/07, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > On 5/28/07, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Just a friendly reminder. We're missing anoter IPMC vote ...
> >
> > issues
> > -------
> >
> > i think that apache-servicemix-3.1.1-incubating.tar.gz has some
> > libraries in lib that are missing their LICENSE/NOTICE entries (eg
> > howl, jencks)
> There are licensed under ASL 2.0 and don't have any NOTICE file afaik.
> Should all the jars be listed in the LICENSE / NOTICE file ? My assumption
> was that only those who had some attributions somehow or with a
> different license
> need to be, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Can someone clarify this? How are Apache Licensed projects that are
included in an ASF project supposed to be handled if they don't
provide their own NOTICE file?
> > apache-servicemix-3.1.1-incubating-src.zip contains a directory that
> > seems like somethings gone wrong (src/C:tmp)
> I will fix that.
> >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/sitemesh-decorator.tld
> >
> > is licensed under "The OpenSymphony Software License, Version 1.1" - i
> > can't see this in LICENSE or NOTICE. same goes to
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/sitemesh-page.tld
> >
> >
> > i think that
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/common.js
> >
> > requires attribution but i can't see anything in NOTICE
> >
> > i think that
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/css.js
> >
> > is missing from the LICENSE
> >
> > also
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/plotkit/*.js
> >
> >
> > (after re-reading the latest version of
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html, i'm not sure how this
> > applies javascript and other distributed source. i'll follow this up
> > with legal.)
> I will add these informations to the LICENSE / NOTICE files.
Is it sufficient to place these licenses in the NOTICE file? Can
someone clarify this please?
> > otherwise generally ok but i have a few questions
> >
> > source in
> > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.1.1-incubating/org/apache/servicemix/samples/wsdl-first/wsdl-first-jsr181-su/3.1.1-incubating/
> >
> > lacks headers. is this going to be released? if so, are these
> > generated?
> >
> > are the jars under
> > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.1.1-incubating/ going to
> > be released?
> >
> > servicemix-wsn2005-3.1.1-incubating-sources.jar contains lots of java
> > sources without headers (mostly under
> > org.apache.servicemix.wsn.jaxws). is this going to be released? if so,
> > are these generated?
> Yeah, lots of these files are generated. Files generated are not in svn
> so we usually check the headers on the svn tree rather than the source
> jars generated by maven. These jars are not meant to be built for only
> contain all the java sources for debugging purposes. If you want to
> build these jars, you need to use the source distribution or use the svn
> tag.
So do we need to license generated files?
Thanks for the assistance.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
Thanks you very much Robert :-)
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/3/07, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert, did you had time to take a look ?
>
> i'm +1
>
>> (other IPMC members are
>> welcome too)
>
> maybe one day :-)
>
> - robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/3/07, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert, did you had time to take a look ?
i'm +1
> (other IPMC members are
> welcome too)
maybe one day :-)
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
Robert, did you had time to take a look ? (other IPMC members are
welcome too)
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> As a new release with updated LICENSE file has been uploaded, all
> signatures have been updated too.
> I've just checked and they all seem ok.
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/07, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert, are you happy to +1 the release now?
>>>
>> after checking this thread, my substantive issue was the bad signatures
>>
>> if they've been updated, i'll take another look
>>
>> - robert
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
As a new release with updated LICENSE file has been uploaded, all
signatures have been updated too.
I've just checked and they all seem ok.
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/2/07, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Robert, are you happy to +1 the release now?
>
>
> after checking this thread, my substantive issue was the bad signatures
>
> if they've been updated, i'll take another look
>
> - robert
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/2/07, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Robert, are you happy to +1 the release now?
after checking this thread, my substantive issue was the bad signatures
if they've been updated, i'll take another look
- robert
Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
Robert, are you happy to +1 the release now?
On 6/19/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/07, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have have some questions that need answering before we can proceed
> > with the release. Please them inline below:
> >
> > On 5/29/07, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > > > On 5/28/07, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Just a friendly reminder. We're missing anoter IPMC vote ...
> > > >
> > > > issues
> > > > -------
> > > >
> > > > i think that apache-servicemix-3.1.1-incubating.tar.gz has some
> > > > libraries in lib that are missing their LICENSE/NOTICE entries (eg
> > > > howl, jencks)
> > > There are licensed under ASL 2.0 and don't have any NOTICE file afaik.
> > > Should all the jars be listed in the LICENSE / NOTICE file ? My
> > assumption
> > > was that only those who had some attributions somehow or with a
> > > different license
> > > need to be, but correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > Can someone clarify this?
>
>
> it's best that license information is provided clearly for all external
> parts of a release. otherwise, the collective license can be confused with
> the constituent licenses.
>
> i don't think that it's positively harmful to ship a release which is
> missing information about jars that are apache licensed but i would ask to
> find out their licensing if i didn't know them
>
> (IMHO we need to move towards using meta-data to record this information so
> that these questions don't have to continually asked)
>
> How are Apache Licensed projects that are
> > included in an ASF project supposed to be handled if they don't
> > provide their own NOTICE file?
>
>
> it they don't provide their own NOTICE file then that's fine
>
> but again, missing NOTICE files raise questions which then require answers
>
> > > apache-servicemix-3.1.1-incubating-src.zip contains a directory that
> > > > seems like somethings gone wrong (src/C:tmp)
> > > I will fix that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/sitemesh-decorator.tld
> > > >
> > > > is licensed under "The OpenSymphony Software License, Version 1.1" - i
> > > > can't see this in LICENSE or NOTICE. same goes to
> > > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/sitemesh-page.tld
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > i think that
> > > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/common.js
> > > >
> > > > requires attribution but i can't see anything in NOTICE
> > > >
> > > > i think that
> > > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/css.js
> > > >
> > > > is missing from the LICENSE
> > > >
> > > > also
> > > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/plotkit/*.js
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (after re-reading the latest version of
> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html, i'm not sure how this
> > > > applies javascript and other distributed source. i'll follow this up
> > > > with legal.)
> > > I will add these informations to the LICENSE / NOTICE files.
> >
> > Is it sufficient to place these licenses in the NOTICE file? Can
> > someone clarify this please?
>
>
> see http://www.apache.org/legal/
>
> personally, speaking i wouldn't -1 a release that include LICENSE
> information in the NOTICE but AIUI it's more appropriate in LICENSE
>
> > > otherwise generally ok but i have a few questions
> > > >
> > > > source in
> > > >
> > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.1.1-incubating/org/apache/servicemix/samples/wsdl-first/wsdl-first-jsr181-su/3.1.1-incubating/
> > > >
> > > > lacks headers. is this going to be released? if so, are these
> > > > generated?
> > > >
> > > > are the jars under
> > > > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.1.1-incubating/ going to
> > > > be released?
> > > >
> > > > servicemix-wsn2005-3.1.1-incubating-sources.jar contains lots of java
> > > > sources without headers (mostly under
> > > > org.apache.servicemix.wsn.jaxws). is this going to be released? if so,
> > > > are these generated?
> > > Yeah, lots of these files are generated. Files generated are not in svn
> > > so we usually check the headers on the svn tree rather than the source
> > > jars generated by maven. These jars are not meant to be built for only
> > > contain all the java sources for debugging purposes. If you want to
> > > build these jars, you need to use the source distribution or use the svn
> > > tag.
> >
> > So do we need to license generated files?
>
>
> nope (AIUI generated files are not independently copyrightable)
>
> just needed to check that these were indeed generated and so didn't need a
> license header
>
> - robert
>
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 6/16/07, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have have some questions that need answering before we can proceed
> with the release. Please them inline below:
>
> On 5/29/07, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > > On 5/28/07, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Just a friendly reminder. We're missing anoter IPMC vote ...
> > >
> > > issues
> > > -------
> > >
> > > i think that apache-servicemix-3.1.1-incubating.tar.gz has some
> > > libraries in lib that are missing their LICENSE/NOTICE entries (eg
> > > howl, jencks)
> > There are licensed under ASL 2.0 and don't have any NOTICE file afaik.
> > Should all the jars be listed in the LICENSE / NOTICE file ? My
> assumption
> > was that only those who had some attributions somehow or with a
> > different license
> > need to be, but correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Can someone clarify this?
it's best that license information is provided clearly for all external
parts of a release. otherwise, the collective license can be confused with
the constituent licenses.
i don't think that it's positively harmful to ship a release which is
missing information about jars that are apache licensed but i would ask to
find out their licensing if i didn't know them
(IMHO we need to move towards using meta-data to record this information so
that these questions don't have to continually asked)
How are Apache Licensed projects that are
> included in an ASF project supposed to be handled if they don't
> provide their own NOTICE file?
it they don't provide their own NOTICE file then that's fine
but again, missing NOTICE files raise questions which then require answers
> > apache-servicemix-3.1.1-incubating-src.zip contains a directory that
> > > seems like somethings gone wrong (src/C:tmp)
> > I will fix that.
> > >
> > >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/sitemesh-decorator.tld
> > >
> > > is licensed under "The OpenSymphony Software License, Version 1.1" - i
> > > can't see this in LICENSE or NOTICE. same goes to
> > >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/sitemesh-page.tld
> > >
> > >
> > > i think that
> > >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/common.js
> > >
> > > requires attribution but i can't see anything in NOTICE
> > >
> > > i think that
> > >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/css.js
> > >
> > > is missing from the LICENSE
> > >
> > > also
> > >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/plotkit/*.js
> > >
> > >
> > > (after re-reading the latest version of
> > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html, i'm not sure how this
> > > applies javascript and other distributed source. i'll follow this up
> > > with legal.)
> > I will add these informations to the LICENSE / NOTICE files.
>
> Is it sufficient to place these licenses in the NOTICE file? Can
> someone clarify this please?
see http://www.apache.org/legal/
personally, speaking i wouldn't -1 a release that include LICENSE
information in the NOTICE but AIUI it's more appropriate in LICENSE
> > otherwise generally ok but i have a few questions
> > >
> > > source in
> > >
> http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.1.1-incubating/org/apache/servicemix/samples/wsdl-first/wsdl-first-jsr181-su/3.1.1-incubating/
> > >
> > > lacks headers. is this going to be released? if so, are these
> > > generated?
> > >
> > > are the jars under
> > > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.1.1-incubating/ going to
> > > be released?
> > >
> > > servicemix-wsn2005-3.1.1-incubating-sources.jar contains lots of java
> > > sources without headers (mostly under
> > > org.apache.servicemix.wsn.jaxws). is this going to be released? if so,
> > > are these generated?
> > Yeah, lots of these files are generated. Files generated are not in svn
> > so we usually check the headers on the svn tree rather than the source
> > jars generated by maven. These jars are not meant to be built for only
> > contain all the java sources for debugging purposes. If you want to
> > build these jars, you need to use the source distribution or use the svn
> > tag.
>
> So do we need to license generated files?
nope (AIUI generated files are not independently copyrightable)
just needed to check that these were indeed generated and so didn't need a
license header
- robert