You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@stanbol.apache.org by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com> on 2012/03/22 11:19:48 UTC

[VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Hi,

This is the fourth release candidate to release Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating.

Please vote for releasing
Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

The release is available for download at:
http://people.apache.org/~fchrist/apache-stanbol-0.9.0-incubating-RC4/

Keys are at:
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/stanbol/KEYS

Release tag is:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stanbol/tags/0.9.0-incubating

This release covers 394 resolved issues marked in JIRA as fixed for
0.9.0-incubating.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?mode=hide&requestId=12319391

This vote is open for at least 72 hours.

Best,
 - Fabian

-- 
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Suat Gonul <su...@gmail.com>.
Hi,

I have build and run successfully. In terms of Contenthub and CMS
Adapter, there seems no problem. So,

+1

Best,
Suat

On 03/22/2012 12:19 PM, Fabian Christ wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is the fourth release candidate to release Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating.
>
> Please vote for releasing
> Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4
>
> The release is available for download at:
> http://people.apache.org/~fchrist/apache-stanbol-0.9.0-incubating-RC4/
>
> Keys are at:
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/stanbol/KEYS
>
> Release tag is:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stanbol/tags/0.9.0-incubating
>
> This release covers 394 resolved issues marked in JIRA as fixed for
> 0.9.0-incubating.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?mode=hide&requestId=12319391
>
> This vote is open for at least 72 hours.
>
> Best,
>  - Fabian
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Rupert Westenthaler
<ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 23.03.2012, at 13:06, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>
>> 3) The build fails for me if using -p rat, had to add this to
>> contenthub/store/clerezza/src/license/THIRD-PARTY.properties...

> I had the same problem with RC3, but it disappeared after deleting the clerezza
> bundles from my local maven repository and re-downloading them from maven central...

Works for me as well, thanks for the hint!

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Rupert Westenthaler <ru...@gmail.com>.
On 23.03.2012, at 13:06, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> 
> 3) The build fails for me if using -p rat, had to add this to
> contenthub/store/clerezza/src/license/THIRD-PARTY.properties
> 
> org.apache.clerezza.scala--script-engine--0.1-incubating=The Apache
> Software License, Version 2.0
> 

I had the same problem with RC3, but it disappeared after deleting the clerezza bundles from my local maven repository and re-downloading them from maven central.

I think this might be related to local cached version originating for locally build version of the different Clerezza release candidates. 

best
Rupert

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,

Am 23. März 2012 13:06 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> 2) The http://build.mnode.org/projects/ical4j/license.html requires a
> copyright mention in the NOTICE file IMO.

I have included a NOTICE in the 0.9.0-incubating RC5 but now I think
this was not needed.

AFAIU the NOTICE and LICENSE files are for notes and licenses for
artifacts included in our source distribution, e.g. a JavaScript lib.
But iCal4j is not redistributed as part of our source release. Binary
dependencies downloaded by Maven do not count here. Therefore, there
is no need to include a notice.

What is missing in the ASF process is a standard separate file that
lists all used binary dependencies. We use the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE
file for this. Many people seem to use the NOTICE and LICENSE file for
this, but this seems to be wrong. I only have this link [1] at the
moment for my theory but I would really like to understand this. I'll
keep searching ;)

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg34292.html

Best,
 - Fabian

-- 
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...We cannot redistribute code that has LGPL dependencies [1]...

sorry forgot [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Rupert Westenthaler
<ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23.03.2012, at 13:06, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
...
>> GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), Version 2.1 :
>>  * JAX-RS provider for JSON content type...
>>  * Xml Compatibility extensions for Jackson...
>
> both such jackson libs are dual licensed under Apache License 2.0 and LGPL. Therefore they are listed under both
> * Apache Software License, Version 2.0  and
> * GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), Version 2.1 :

Ok, created STANBOL-548 as I think we should not list them as LGPL.

...
>>  * XOM (xom:xom:1.2.5 - http://xom.nu)
>
> this is in fact LGPL dependency that needs to be replaced...

Created STANBOL-549 for that.

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Rupert Westenthaler <ru...@gmail.com>.
On 23.03.2012, at 13:06, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

> 1) Checking the (very cool) DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file I notice this:
> 
> GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), Version 2.1 :
>  * JAX-RS provider for JSON content type
> (org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs:1.7.1 -
> http://jackson.codehaus.org)
>  * Xml Compatibility extensions for Jackson
> (org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-xc:1.7.1 - http://jackson.codehaus.org)

both such jackson libs are dual licensed under Apache License 2.0 and LGPL. Therefore they are listed under both
* Apache Software License, Version 2.0  and
* GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), Version 2.1 : 

within the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file

>  * XOM (xom:xom:1.2.5 - http://xom.nu)

this is in fact LGPL dependency that needs to be replaced.

best
Rupert

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Alessandro Adamou <ad...@cs.unibo.it>.
Hi Fabian,

I noticed the ontologymanager POM in the branch still references the 
store module (moved to contrib and not in the source release). This 
makes it impossible to build ontologymanager alone.

I have committed a fix and now the main reactor can reference the full 
ontologymanager module. I also committed a fix from last Thursday.

I'll be flying shortly, see you at the DFKI.

Alessandro

P.S. any more votes for moving reengineer to contrib?


On 3/26/12 9:49 AM, Fabian Christ wrote:
> Hi Betrand, all,
>
> thanks for checking the release.
>
> Meanwhile the LGPL issue with
>   * XOM (xom:xom:1.2.5 - http://xom.nu)
> has been resolved in STANBOL-549
>
> One question: Should issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-550
> concerning clarification of unfamiliar licenses be mentioned somewhere
> in the NOTICE file?
>
> Regarding the dual license problem
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-548
> I always understood the we have to identify and list all licenses of a
> component. That's also why I included, e.g. the LGPL licensing text in
> the LICENSE file according to [1]. My conclusion was that we also have
> to list all the licenses in the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file. But I
> agree that it would be nicer if the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE would
> mention dual licensed artifacts explicitly.
>
> [1] http://apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
>
> With the made changes in the release branch, we can create an RC5 and
> cancel the vote for RC4.
>
> My plan is to create the RC5 this afternoon.
>
> Best,
>   - Fabian
>
>
> Am 23. März 2012 14:51 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz<bd...@apache.org>:
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> <bd...@apache.org>  wrote:
>>> ...1) Checking the (very cool) DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file I notice this...
>> I've also listed at STANBOL-550 the licenses found in that file that
>> were unfamiliar to me, with links and details, so that we don't have
>> to lookup that information again for the next release.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>
>


-- 
M.Sc. Alessandro Adamou

Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna
Department of Computer Science
Mura Anteo Zamboni 7, 40127 Bologna - Italy

Semantic Technology Laboratory (STLab)
Institute for Cognitive Science and Technology (ISTC)
National Research Council (CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, 00161 Rome - Italy


"I will give you everything, so long as you do not demand anything."
(Ettore Petrolini, 1930)

Not sent from my iSnobTechDevice

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,

regarding the dual licensing I found this interesting post from Roy Fielding

http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg34292.html

It says, that it does not make any sense to chose a license. If an
artifact is dual licensed then it is dual licensed - no need to chose.
I think our process to mention all licenses is perfectly fine here ;)

It is a difficult topic and every podling that I have followed so far
has problems to get this right.

Best,
 - Fabian

Am 26. März 2012 13:14 schrieb Rupert Westenthaler
<ru...@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Fabian Christ
> <ch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Regarding the dual license problem
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-548
>> I always understood the we have to identify and list all licenses of a
>> component. That's also why I included, e.g. the LGPL licensing text in
>> the LICENSE file according to [1]. My conclusion was that we also have
>> to list all the licenses in the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file. But I
>> agree that it would be nicer if the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE would
>> mention dual licensed artifacts explicitly.
>>
>> [1] http://apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
>>
>
> http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonDownload
>
>    ... clearly states that you have to chose one of the two licenses
> if you redistribute. Based on that I think it is OK to just mention
> the Apache License.
>
>
>> With the made changes in the release branch, we can create an RC5 and
>> cancel the vote for RC4.
>>
>
> +1
>
> best
> Rupert
>
> --
> | Rupert Westenthaler             rupert.westenthaler@gmail.com
> | Bodenlehenstraße 11                             ++43-699-11108907
> | A-5500 Bischofshofen



-- 
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Rupert Westenthaler <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Fabian Christ
<ch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Regarding the dual license problem
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-548
> I always understood the we have to identify and list all licenses of a
> component. That's also why I included, e.g. the LGPL licensing text in
> the LICENSE file according to [1]. My conclusion was that we also have
> to list all the licenses in the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file. But I
> agree that it would be nicer if the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE would
> mention dual licensed artifacts explicitly.
>
> [1] http://apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
>

http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonDownload

    ... clearly states that you have to chose one of the two licenses
if you redistribute. Based on that I think it is OK to just mention
the Apache License.


> With the made changes in the release branch, we can create an RC5 and
> cancel the vote for RC4.
>

+1

best
Rupert

-- 
| Rupert Westenthaler             rupert.westenthaler@gmail.com
| Bodenlehenstraße 11                             ++43-699-11108907
| A-5500 Bischofshofen

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Alessandro Adamou <ad...@cs.unibo.it>.
Hi Fabian,

I noticed the ontologymanager POM in the branch still references the 
store module (moved to contrib and not in the source release). This 
makes it impossible to build ontologymanager alone.

I have committed a fix and now the main reactor can reference the full 
ontologymanager module. I also committed a fix from last Thursday.

I'll be flying shortly, see you a the DFKI.

Alessandro

P.S. any more votes for moving reengineer to contrib?


On 3/26/12 9:49 AM, Fabian Christ wrote:
> Hi Betrand, all,
>
> thanks for checking the release.
>
> Meanwhile the LGPL issue with
>   * XOM (xom:xom:1.2.5 - http://xom.nu)
> has been resolved in STANBOL-549
>
> One question: Should issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-550
> concerning clarification of unfamiliar licenses be mentioned somewhere
> in the NOTICE file?
>
> Regarding the dual license problem
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-548
> I always understood the we have to identify and list all licenses of a
> component. That's also why I included, e.g. the LGPL licensing text in
> the LICENSE file according to [1]. My conclusion was that we also have
> to list all the licenses in the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file. But I
> agree that it would be nicer if the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE would
> mention dual licensed artifacts explicitly.
>
> [1] http://apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
>
> With the made changes in the release branch, we can create an RC5 and
> cancel the vote for RC4.
>
> My plan is to create the RC5 this afternoon.
>
> Best,
>   - Fabian
>
>
> Am 23. März 2012 14:51 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz<bd...@apache.org>:
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> <bd...@apache.org>  wrote:
>>> ...1) Checking the (very cool) DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file I notice this...
>> I've also listed at STANBOL-550 the licenses found in that file that
>> were unfamiliar to me, with links and details, so that we don't have
>> to lookup that information again for the next release.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>
>


-- 
M.Sc. Alessandro Adamou

Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna
Department of Computer Science
Mura Anteo Zamboni 7, 40127 Bologna - Italy

Semantic Technology Laboratory (STLab)
Institute for Cognitive Science and Technology (ISTC)
National Research Council (CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, 00161 Rome - Italy


"I will give you everything, so long as you do not demand anything."
(Ettore Petrolini, 1930)

Not sent from my iSnobTechDevice

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Betrand, all,

thanks for checking the release.

Meanwhile the LGPL issue with
 * XOM (xom:xom:1.2.5 - http://xom.nu)
has been resolved in STANBOL-549

One question: Should issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-550
concerning clarification of unfamiliar licenses be mentioned somewhere
in the NOTICE file?

Regarding the dual license problem
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-548
I always understood the we have to identify and list all licenses of a
component. That's also why I included, e.g. the LGPL licensing text in
the LICENSE file according to [1]. My conclusion was that we also have
to list all the licenses in the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file. But I
agree that it would be nicer if the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE would
mention dual licensed artifacts explicitly.

[1] http://apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses

With the made changes in the release branch, we can create an RC5 and
cancel the vote for RC4.

My plan is to create the RC5 this afternoon.

Best,
 - Fabian


Am 23. März 2012 14:51 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...1) Checking the (very cool) DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file I notice this...
>
> I've also listed at STANBOL-550 the licenses found in that file that
> were unfamiliar to me, with links and details, so that we don't have
> to lookup that information again for the next release.
>
> -Bertrand



-- 
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...1) Checking the (very cool) DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file I notice this...

I've also listed at STANBOL-550 the licenses found in that file that
were unfamiliar to me, with links and details, so that we don't have
to lookup that information again for the next release.

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Fabian,

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Fabian Christ
<ch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...The release is available for download at:
> http://people.apache.org/~fchrist/apache-stanbol-0.9.0-incubating-RC4/

Thanks for preparing the release - I have 3 issues:

1) Checking the (very cool) DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file I notice this:

GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), Version 2.1 :
  * JAX-RS provider for JSON content type
(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs:1.7.1 -
http://jackson.codehaus.org)
  * Xml Compatibility extensions for Jackson
(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-xc:1.7.1 - http://jackson.codehaus.org)
  * XOM (xom:xom:1.2.5 - http://xom.nu)

We cannot redistribute code that has LGPL dependencies [1], has this
been discussed before?
(RTFMLA (*) links welcome)

2) The http://build.mnode.org/projects/ical4j/license.html requires a
copyright mention in the NOTICE file IMO.

3) The build fails for me if using -p rat, had to add this to
contenthub/store/clerezza/src/license/THIRD-PARTY.properties

org.apache.clerezza.scala--script-engine--0.1-incubating=The Apache
Software License, Version 2.0

-Bertrand

[1]
(*) RTFMAL = Read The Fine Mailing List Archives. Just made that up ;-)

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4

Posted by Martin Dow <ma...@acuityunlimited.net>.
Hi Fabian,

Thanks for this.

We'd looked for the previous RC3 as per your last [VOTE] email, but finding no 
tag two days ago checked out from the branch at 
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stanbol/branches/0.9.0-incubating 
and rebuilt code against that, which seemed to be ok after some mods our side 
which we knew we had to do - so was about to vote!  

We'll try again for RC4..

Cheers,

Martin


On Thursday 22 Mar 2012 10:19:48 Fabian Christ wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is the fourth release candidate to release Apache Stanbol
> 0.9.0-incubating.
> 
> Please vote for releasing
> Apache Stanbol 0.9.0-incubating RC4
> 
> The release is available for download at:
> http://people.apache.org/~fchrist/apache-stanbol-0.9.0-incubating-RC4/
> 
> Keys are at:
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/stanbol/KEYS
> 
> Release tag is:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stanbol/tags/0.9.0-incubating
> 
> This release covers 394 resolved issues marked in JIRA as fixed for
> 0.9.0-incubating.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?mode=hide&request
> Id=12319391
> 
> This vote is open for at least 72 hours.
> 
> Best,
>  - Fabian