You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@marmotta.apache.org by Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org> on 2013/03/22 11:56:50 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Dear all,
third try for a release vote. The following things have been fixed:
- reference to OneJar license added to LICENSE.txt file for -ldpath assembly
- more concrete specification of RAT excludes
- added comment feature to KWRL and LDPath so test files can have a license
header
- some bug fixes in triple store.
I'd like to ask you to vote within the next 72 hours on the following issue:
=======
A candidate for the Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating release is available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/marmotta/3.0.0-incubating/
The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-marmotta.git
The SHA1 checksum of the archive is
670d7c5d4d524acb86665f234dac4ade16be8da6.
A staged Maven repository is available for review at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemarmotta-013/
Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating.
The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
least three +1 Marmotta PMC votes are cast.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating
[ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
========
Greetings,
Sebastian
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <na...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Fabian Christ <
christ.fabian@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> include a copy of this modified versions. I am really not an expert
> but there might be people who would argue that you need to include a
> copy of such licenses in LICENSE. My understanding of the ASF policies
> is that you should include copies of the license not just pointers.
> People need to be able to verify the licenses without the need to
> follow pointers to websites which may change. In doubt I would include
> the license text.
>
I am not an expert in this area neither but I think a pointer sufficient
though it won't hurt to include a copy just to be in the safe side.
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
http://s.apache.org/Hqj
Best Regards,
Nandana
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <na...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Summary: I still believe that the NOTICE file is the wrong place for
>> listing included libs. It is for legal notices, only.
>>
>
> This was a point from last RC and we don't seem to have got to consensus
> yet.
>
> When I looked last cycle, I got to point where I think source inclusion
> and binary bundling are handled differently:
>
> -- source inclusion
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/**licensing-howto.html#mod-**notice<http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice>
>
> I concluded that when it's included source code, if the whole source code
> is used and that includes the copyright/license statement, it should be
> left as-is and a pointer in LICENSE is sufficient.
>
> If, however, only part of the source code is used, or if it is not
> correctly labelled with their BSD-style notice, then the full license goes
> in LICENSE. Additionally, if there is a missing copyright, a copyright
> statement goes in NOTICE (so there is no potential to believe it (c)
> anything else).
>
> It depends on how each item is used in Marmotta which means each usage
> needs checking as to how it's used.
>
> (I also trying to learn here - it's not something I'd had to deal with.
> On Jena we had included BSD source fragments and bundled binaries only and
> even then we have full license in LICENSE where we are shipping binaries
> ourselves on the principle of being self-contained for the bytes in the
> artifact.)
>
> -- binary bundling
>
> Sebastain came up [1] with the info:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/**licensing-howto.html#**permissive-deps<http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps>
>
> when the binary artifact bundles BSD unchanged.
>
> Fabian, Sebastian, all - Does that agree with your understanding?
I agree with both Fabian and Andy.
Fabian's point is documented in the guide "It is important to keep NOTICE
as brief and simple as possible, as each addition places a burden on
downstream consumers. Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally
required." [1]. So I think we need to check each of the dependencies using
the aforementioned reasoning by Andy to see whether we need to include
anything in the notice file for them i.e. whether they are correctly
annotated with licence and copyright notices.
I checked few like strftime.js, prototype.js, MigLayOut.java which don't
seem to need anything additional in the notice file as "elements such as
the copyright notifications embedded within BSD and MIT licenses need not
be duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in their
original locations." [1]. I think Sgvizler is bit tricky as it contains
some files without licence headers and copyright notices. E.g.
sgvizler/0.5/lib/d3.geom.min.js
sgvizler/0.5/lib/d3.layout.min.js
sgvizler/0.5/lib/d3.min.js
So following Andy's advice it might be reasonable to add a note in the
NOTICE to make sure that there is no potential to believe otherwise. And
also may be in the licence, it might be worth adding a reference to those
tiles like in [2].
So +1 to removing the additional stuff about dependencies when it not
necessary.
Best Regards,
Nandana
[1] - http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
[2] - http://incubator.apache.org/guides/examples/LICENSE
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andy,
thanks for the summary list :)
2013/3/25 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
> From Fabian's excellent detailed and careful review:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/incubator-**
> marmotta-dev/201303.mbox/%**3CCA%2B_sZ%2BjY_eH52KhEea19%**3DL%3DGMJW%**
> 2BS5N7FBVmRM6TQeuL22Leuw%**40mail.gmail.com%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-marmotta-dev/201303.mbox/%3CCA%2B_sZ%2BjY_eH52KhEea19%3DL%3DGMJW%2BS5N7FBVmRM6TQeuL22Leuw%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
>
> I think we need to make sure we are agreed on each of these items:
>
> == SHA1 archive and tag
>
>
> >> The SHA1 checksum of the archive is
>
>> 670d7c5d4d524acb86665f234dac4a**de16be8da6.
>>>
>>
>> Which archive are you referring to?
>>
>
> I went looking expecting this to the SHA1 of the tag commit but can't find
> such a git commit or the tag with that SHA1.
>
> What was this commit SHA1?
It should be the checksum of the source archive (i.e. the main distribution
file). If it is not, the e-mail has a bug. The .sha files are the ones
containing the correct information. I will check the mail next time, maybe
something went wrong here in the process.
>
> The KEYS are okay but could be placed at a location like
>> http://marmotta.incubator.**apache.org/KEYS<http://marmotta.incubator.apache.org/KEYS>
>>
>
> == KEYS
>
> See also comment on KEYS.asc vs KEYS
>
> The file will be placed at http://marmotta.incubator.**apache.org/KEYS<http://marmotta.incubator.apache.org/KEYS>
>
> No response to the KEYS.asc naming. Is it changing?
>
KEYS.asc is the (self-)signed version of the KEYS file. The KEYS file
itself contains all the keys that are potentially used by the developers.
If you want, we can remove the KEYS.asc, as it is not strictly required.
Doesn't hurt, though.
>
> == N&L 2
>
>
> "data based on JSON-LD Test Suite licensed under CC0 License" in
>> NOTICE but there is no info in LICENSE - what is CC0? Fix in future
>> releases.
>>
>
> Sebastain explained this but I'm unclear whether there is a proposed
> change. I think it should be in LICENSE.
It cannot be added, because it is in the public domain, so it has no
license at all, see:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
What I can add to the license is a short note saying that it is in the
public domain with a CC0 license.
>
> Checking
>> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-**incubating-webapp.zip
>> LICENSE & NOTICE: "H2 Database Engine under The H2 License, Version
>> 1.0" in NOTICE but in LICENSE there is no "H2 License". In LICENSE it
>> says "is dual licensed and available
>> under a modified version of the MPL 1.1 (Mozilla Public License) or
>> under the (unmodified) EPL 1.0 (Eclipse Public License)". You do not
>> include a copy of this modified versions. I am really not an expert
>> but there might be people who would argue that you need to include a
>> copy of such licenses in LICENSE. My understanding of the ASF policies
>> is that you should include copies of the license not just pointers.
>> People need to be able to verify the licenses without the need to
>> follow pointers to websites which may change. In doubt I would include
>> the license text.
>>
>
> == N&L 3
>
> To be added to LICENSE (in progress)
>
(DONE)
>
> == DISCLAIMER
>
> Missing in various binaries.
>
>
> Checking
>> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-**incubating-installer.zip
>> marmotta-installer-3.0.0-**incubating.jar/META-INF: Missing LICENSE,
>> NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
>>
>
This is an "executable jar" that noone can use as library or dependency.
The LICENSE is displayed when running the installer. But to be sure, I will
add the files anyways to META-INF/.
(DONE).
> marmotta.war: Missing DISCLAIMER
>>
>
(DONE).
>
> Checking
>> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-**incubating-ldpath.zip
>> NOTICE has a list of included libs but the LICENSE does not list all
>> of them -> missing pointers to LICENSES
>>
>
(DONE).
>
> ldpath-3.0.0-incubating.jar/**META-INF : Missing LICENSE, NOTICE,
>> DISCLAIMER
>>
>
(DONE).
>
> == Maven artifacts
>
> DISCLAIMER issues
>
> (DONE).
>
> Checking staged repo:
>> 2013/3/22 Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org>:
>>
>>> A staged Maven repository is available for review at:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/**content/repositories/**
>>> orgapachemarmotta-013/<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemarmotta-013/>
>>>
>>
>> I checked arbitrary files in the staged repo. All JARs I checked are
>> missing the DISCLAIMER in META-INF. I assume this is a general problem
>> with the build system. But the DISCLAIMER has to be there.
>>
>
> == Handling included source code
>
>
> Summary: I still believe that the NOTICE file is the wrong place for
>> listing included libs. It is for legal notices, only.
>>
>
> This was a point from last RC and we don't seem to have got to consensus
> yet.
>
> When I looked last cycle, I got to point where I think source inclusion
> and binary bundling are handled differently:
>
> -- source inclusion
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/**licensing-howto.html#mod-**notice<http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice>
>
> I concluded that when it's included source code, if the whole source code
> is used and that includes the copyright/license statement, it should be
> left as-is and a pointer in LICENSE is sufficient.
>
> If, however, only part of the source code is used, or if it is not
> correctly labelled with their BSD-style notice, then the full license goes
> in LICENSE. Additionally, if there is a missing copyright, a copyright
> statement goes in NOTICE (so there is no potential to believe it (c)
> anything else).
>
> It depends on how each item is used in Marmotta which means each usage
> needs checking as to how it's used.
>
> (I also trying to learn here - it's not something I'd had to deal with.
> On Jena we had included BSD source fragments and bundled binaries only and
> even then we have full license in LICENSE where we are shipping binaries
> ourselves on the principle of being self-contained for the bytes in the
> artifact.)
>
> -- binary bundling
>
> Sebastain came up [1] with the info:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/**licensing-howto.html#**permissive-deps<http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps>
>
> when the binary artifact bundles BSD unchanged.
>
> Fabian, Sebastian, all - Does that agree with your understanding?
For me, yes.
Greetings,
Sebastian
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
2013/3/25 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>:
> -- source inclusion
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
>
> I concluded that when it's included source code, if the whole source code is
> used and that includes the copyright/license statement, it should be left
> as-is and a pointer in LICENSE is sufficient.
>
> If, however, only part of the source code is used, or if it is not correctly
> labelled with their BSD-style notice, then the full license goes in LICENSE.
> Additionally, if there is a missing copyright, a copyright statement goes in
> NOTICE (so there is no potential to believe it (c) anything else).
>
> It depends on how each item is used in Marmotta which means each usage needs
> checking as to how it's used.
>
> (I also trying to learn here - it's not something I'd had to deal with. On
> Jena we had included BSD source fragments and bundled binaries only and even
> then we have full license in LICENSE where we are shipping binaries
> ourselves on the principle of being self-contained for the bytes in the
> artifact.)
>
> -- binary bundling
>
> Sebastain came up [1] with the info:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>
> when the binary artifact bundles BSD unchanged.
>
> Fabian, Sebastian, all - Does that agree with your understanding?
+1 agreed.
If in doubt, follow the rule that the LICENSE may contain as much
information as you like about the licensing of an included artifact.
The NOTICE should be kept minimal and information is only added if
required by a license of an included artifact. Most often, the NOTICE
is only the default one and nothing has to be added.
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
From Fabian's excellent detailed and careful review:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-marmotta-dev/201303.mbox/%3CCA%2B_sZ%2BjY_eH52KhEea19%3DL%3DGMJW%2BS5N7FBVmRM6TQeuL22Leuw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
I think we need to make sure we are agreed on each of these items:
== SHA1 archive and tag
>> The SHA1 checksum of the archive is
>> 670d7c5d4d524acb86665f234dac4ade16be8da6.
>
> Which archive are you referring to?
I went looking expecting this to the SHA1 of the tag commit but can't
find such a git commit or the tag with that SHA1.
What was this commit SHA1?
> The KEYS are okay but could be placed at a location like
> http://marmotta.incubator.apache.org/KEYS
== KEYS
See also comment on KEYS.asc vs KEYS
The file will be placed at http://marmotta.incubator.apache.org/KEYS
No response to the KEYS.asc naming. Is it changing?
== N&L 1
> LICENSE & NOTICE: "software based on Sgvizler license under a
> MIT-style license" in NOTICE but
> "Sgvizler Javascript library, which is available under a "MIT"
> license" in LICENSE. Is there a difference? Not a problem for the
> release.
Fix in progress.
== N&L 2
> "data based on JSON-LD Test Suite licensed under CC0 License" in
> NOTICE but there is no info in LICENSE - what is CC0? Fix in future
> releases.
Sebastain explained this but I'm unclear whether there is a proposed
change. I think it should be in LICENSE.
> Checking
> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.zip
> LICENSE & NOTICE: "H2 Database Engine under The H2 License, Version
> 1.0" in NOTICE but in LICENSE there is no "H2 License". In LICENSE it
> says "is dual licensed and available
> under a modified version of the MPL 1.1 (Mozilla Public License) or
> under the (unmodified) EPL 1.0 (Eclipse Public License)". You do not
> include a copy of this modified versions. I am really not an expert
> but there might be people who would argue that you need to include a
> copy of such licenses in LICENSE. My understanding of the ASF policies
> is that you should include copies of the license not just pointers.
> People need to be able to verify the licenses without the need to
> follow pointers to websites which may change. In doubt I would include
> the license text.
== N&L 3
To be added to LICENSE (in progress)
== DISCLAIMER
Missing in various binaries.
> Checking
> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.zip
> marmotta-installer-3.0.0-incubating.jar/META-INF: Missing LICENSE,
> NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
> marmotta.war: Missing DISCLAIMER
> Checking
> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.zip
> NOTICE has a list of included libs but the LICENSE does not list all
> of them -> missing pointers to LICENSES
> ldpath-3.0.0-incubating.jar/META-INF : Missing LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
== Maven artifacts
DISCLAIMER issues
> Checking staged repo:
> 2013/3/22 Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org>:
>> A staged Maven repository is available for review at:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemarmotta-013/
>
> I checked arbitrary files in the staged repo. All JARs I checked are
> missing the DISCLAIMER in META-INF. I assume this is a general problem
> with the build system. But the DISCLAIMER has to be there.
== Handling included source code
> Summary: I still believe that the NOTICE file is the wrong place for
> listing included libs. It is for legal notices, only.
This was a point from last RC and we don't seem to have got to consensus
yet.
When I looked last cycle, I got to point where I think source inclusion
and binary bundling are handled differently:
-- source inclusion
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
I concluded that when it's included source code, if the whole source
code is used and that includes the copyright/license statement, it
should be left as-is and a pointer in LICENSE is sufficient.
If, however, only part of the source code is used, or if it is not
correctly labelled with their BSD-style notice, then the full license
goes in LICENSE. Additionally, if there is a missing copyright, a
copyright statement goes in NOTICE (so there is no potential to believe
it (c) anything else).
It depends on how each item is used in Marmotta which means each usage
needs checking as to how it's used.
(I also trying to learn here - it's not something I'd had to deal with.
On Jena we had included BSD source fragments and bundled binaries only
and even then we have full license in LICENSE where we are shipping
binaries ourselves on the principle of being self-contained for the
bytes in the artifact.)
-- binary bundling
Sebastain came up [1] with the info:
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
when the binary artifact bundles BSD unchanged.
Fabian, Sebastian, all - Does that agree with your understanding?
> But
> since I am also still learning a lot about this legal stuff, others
> may have another view on this.
We all are, and it's not completely static either :-)
Andy
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On 25/03/13 18:22, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> Another reason to stress the usage of Webjars in upcoming releases and
> improve how Javascript dependencies are managed.
because sometimes it's better to just do it than procrastinate... commit
20a269a8c7570e018abaac8690aa0ae31811dc25
solves this issue: lmf-0.0.1.js has been removed, and now the marmotta
webjar is used instead.
I wish to do it with all js libraries... one day :-)
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On 25/03/13 18:05, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
> strictly speaking, this file is a generated file and therefore does not
> require a license header. In any case, doesn't hurt either :)
I think not: you are referring to configurator.coffee, which at
compilation phase generates the configurator.js whichs is used to access
the configuration from client-side.
The file pointed by Nandana is actually all version of the Marmotta
client library for Javascript, see:
client/marmotta-client-js/src/main/js/marmotta.js
Another reason to stress the usage of Webjars in upcoming releases and
improve how Javascript dependencies are managed.
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
strictly speaking, this file is a generated file and therefore does not
require a license header. In any case, doesn't hurt either :)
2013/3/25 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> On 25/03/13 17:57, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya wrote:
>
>> lmf-0.0.1.js [1] is part of the original contribution, right ? If so,
>> please add the Apache license header to that.
>>
>
> well caught! fixed now, thx :-)
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
>
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
On 25/03/13 17:57, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya wrote:
> lmf-0.0.1.js [1] is part of the original contribution, right ? If so,
> please add the Apache license header to that.
well caught! fixed now, thx :-)
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
2013/3/25 Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>:
> in the binary distributions (-ldpath, -installer, -webapp):
> we will include copyright statements for each included library and copy
> over the contents of their NOTICE file if it exists; most licenses require
> attribution anyways, and in the few cases they do not it is probably not
> such a problem
+1
> in the source distribution:
> we include all copyrights of the source files we include in the
> distribution (these are just a few and already mentioned in the LICENSE
> text)
Can you be a little more specific what is included in which files here?
Thanks,
- Fabian
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Ok, so here is what we are going to do (to be on the safe side):
in the binary distributions (-ldpath, -installer, -webapp):
we will include copyright statements for each included library and copy
over the contents of their NOTICE file if it exists; most licenses require
attribution anyways, and in the few cases they do not it is probably not
such a problem
in the source distribution:
we include all copyrights of the source files we include in the
distribution (these are just a few and already mentioned in the LICENSE
text)
Do you agree with this approach?
Greetings,
Sebastian
2013/3/25 Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>
> 2013/3/25 Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>:
> > I am getting increasingly unsure what the correct way to do this is.
>
> I understand the confusion and I am often confused by myself. This
> stuff becomes complex and we can only do our best to get as close as
> possible to perfect versions of NOTICE and LICENSE. In the end, any
> judge may see it different ;) Unfortunately, you will find examples of
> Apache releases out there which were not crafted that carefully.
>
>
> --
> Fabian
> http://twitter.com/fctwitt
>
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
2013/3/25 Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>:
> I am getting increasingly unsure what the correct way to do this is.
I understand the confusion and I am often confused by myself. This
stuff becomes complex and we can only do our best to get as close as
possible to perfect versions of NOTICE and LICENSE. In the end, any
judge may see it different ;) Unfortunately, you will find examples of
Apache releases out there which were not crafted that carefully.
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <na...@gmail.com>.
Hi Sebastian,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Sebastian Schaffert <
sebastian.schaffert@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have pushed the changes to the GIT repository and added a tag
> "check-license-notice" for you to check. I will remote this again before we
> perform the next release candidate.
>
lmf-0.0.1.js [1] is part of the original contribution, right ? If so,
please add the Apache license header to that.
Best Regards,
Nandana
[1] -
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=platform/marmotta-core/src/main/resources/web/public/js/lib/lmf-0.0.1.js
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
looking at the Geronimo NOTICE file
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk/NOTICE
vs the Tomcat NOTICE file:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/NOTICE
I am getting increasingly unsure what the correct way to do this is. The
Geronimo NOTICE file is very verbose and lists in detail all dependencies.
The Tomcat NOTICE is very short and does not include e.g. the Servlet API
(which is CDDL license by Sun/Oracle). What do you suggest?
Greetings,
Sebastian
2013/3/25 Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>
> Hi all,
>
> if I trim down the NOTICE files according to the rules we defined (i.e.
> only what is strictly required), most NOTICE files, especially the one of
> the source distribution will again be mostly back to the default. Only the
> LICENSE files will contain the necessary information about included files.
>
> I have pushed the changes to the GIT repository and added a tag
> "check-license-notice" for you to check. I will remote this again before we
> perform the next release candidate.
>
> Do you all agree on this change?
>
> Greetings,
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> 2013/3/25 Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>
>
>> Ok, I forgot that Sesame is under BSD license, so since there is no
>> attribution clause there we can probably skip including it.
>>
>>
>> 2013/3/25 Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Hi Andy, and other mentors,
>>>
>>> while trying to figure out what should go into the NOTICE file and what
>>> not, we realised that the Apache license says that derivative works need to
>>> contain a copy of the NOTICE of included project. So in case of our binary
>>> releases that include the Sesame libraries, this would mean we need to
>>> include the contents of the following file:
>>>
>>> https://bitbucket.org/openrdf/sesame/src/master/core/NOTICE.txt
>>>
>>> What we are not sure about is whether it would be ok to only mention
>>> Sesame as we do now, or whether we need to include all the NOTICE content
>>> of the dependency. What is your opinion on this?
>>>
>>> For reference, the Apache license says:
>>>
>>> 4d)
>>> If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
>>> distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute
>>> must
>>> include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
>>> within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
>>> pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
>>> of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
>>> as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
>>> documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
>>> within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
>>> wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
>>> of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
>>> do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
>>> notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
>>> or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
>>> that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
>>> as modifying the License.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/3/25 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>>>
>>>> On 25/03/13 12:03, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> restart
>>>>> the release candidate
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sebastian,
>>>>
>>>> As Release Manager, could you send a [CANCELLED] message on this thread
>>>> so that when looking back, the list archive makes it clear as to status?
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
if I trim down the NOTICE files according to the rules we defined (i.e.
only what is strictly required), most NOTICE files, especially the one of
the source distribution will again be mostly back to the default. Only the
LICENSE files will contain the necessary information about included files.
I have pushed the changes to the GIT repository and added a tag
"check-license-notice" for you to check. I will remote this again before we
perform the next release candidate.
Do you all agree on this change?
Greetings,
Sebastian
2013/3/25 Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>
> Ok, I forgot that Sesame is under BSD license, so since there is no
> attribution clause there we can probably skip including it.
>
>
> 2013/3/25 Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>
>
>> Hi Andy, and other mentors,
>>
>> while trying to figure out what should go into the NOTICE file and what
>> not, we realised that the Apache license says that derivative works need to
>> contain a copy of the NOTICE of included project. So in case of our binary
>> releases that include the Sesame libraries, this would mean we need to
>> include the contents of the following file:
>>
>> https://bitbucket.org/openrdf/sesame/src/master/core/NOTICE.txt
>>
>> What we are not sure about is whether it would be ok to only mention
>> Sesame as we do now, or whether we need to include all the NOTICE content
>> of the dependency. What is your opinion on this?
>>
>> For reference, the Apache license says:
>>
>> 4d)
>> If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
>> distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
>> include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
>> within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
>> pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
>> of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
>> as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
>> documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
>> within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
>> wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
>> of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
>> do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
>> notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
>> or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
>> that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
>> as modifying the License.
>>
>>
>> 2013/3/25 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>>
>>> On 25/03/13 12:03, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
>>>
>>>> restart
>>>> the release candidate
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sebastian,
>>>
>>> As Release Manager, could you send a [CANCELLED] message on this thread
>>> so that when looking back, the list archive makes it clear as to status?
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Ok, I forgot that Sesame is under BSD license, so since there is no
attribution clause there we can probably skip including it.
2013/3/25 Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>
> Hi Andy, and other mentors,
>
> while trying to figure out what should go into the NOTICE file and what
> not, we realised that the Apache license says that derivative works need to
> contain a copy of the NOTICE of included project. So in case of our binary
> releases that include the Sesame libraries, this would mean we need to
> include the contents of the following file:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/openrdf/sesame/src/master/core/NOTICE.txt
>
> What we are not sure about is whether it would be ok to only mention
> Sesame as we do now, or whether we need to include all the NOTICE content
> of the dependency. What is your opinion on this?
>
> For reference, the Apache license says:
>
> 4d)
> If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
> distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
> include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
> within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
> pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
> of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
> as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
> documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
> within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
> wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
> of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
> do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
> notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
> or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
> that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
> as modifying the License.
>
>
> 2013/3/25 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>
>> On 25/03/13 12:03, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
>>
>>> restart
>>> the release candidate
>>>
>>
>> Sebastian,
>>
>> As Release Manager, could you send a [CANCELLED] message on this thread
>> so that when looking back, the list archive makes it clear as to status?
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
>
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 27/03/13 09:19, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> Attached the current dependencies; I can't see json.org either.
(using json.org as an example)
json.org is often included as included source - it's small, the official
distribution is source code and any central maven artifact has been
second-class - the most currently looking one seems to be 3rd party
generated. This is a reason why NOTICE is so important.
There is a clash of cultures, between informal and formal views of open
source.
Where each component of some other system all falls under one overall
license, then the whole license applies. If you dig into the bits you
use you can discover there are recursive dependencies you don't inherit.
But while the overall license/notice names a system, the check is
going to have to be every version.
With java (JVM languages) that's easier to check but just packaging
isn't enough. Copied in source code is often repackaged so as to avoid
clashes with other uses from libraries e.g. com.sun.org.apache.xerces
(and quite a lot of other things) in the Java runtime.
Andy
>
> Kudos to Bertrand Delacrétaz for the trick: http://goo.gl/8NJ90
>
> On 27/03/13 10:15, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> funny, we don't have any dependency to the json.org module left in
>> Marmotta. Where is Sesame actually using it? The SPARQL JSON writer seems
>> to write directly to the output stream.
>>
>> Maybe the beta2 does not yet include this code anyways? If you have a new
>> release with more SPARQL JSON support, we would be very happy, because
>> then
>> we can throw away our own code :)
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> 2013/3/27 Peter Ansell<an...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> On 26 March 2013 23:04, Andy Seaborne<an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On 26/03/13 12:47, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/03/13 12:33, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/03/13 16:50, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25/03/13 17:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The license for json.org has the linethat makes it in contradiction
>>>>>>>> with the definition of open source:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is no longer an issue, since we managed to rewrite some code
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> completely removed such dependency (commit
>>>>>>> bdb25fedcbb38c311ffb4f08e84505163109718d) with other with better
>>>>>>> licensing and performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would point out that by shipping any system, you take on the
>>>>>> responsibilities from the license of that system system, not the part
>>>>>> you happen to use.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. In this case the system is Jackson, which was already in use in
>>>>> Marmotta: I've just replaced the single usage of json.org by the
>>>>> equivalent in Jackson.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the remark; we really appreciate your toil as mentors :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this case, having any system like Sesame mention in their NOTICE
>>>> file,
>>>> recursively brings it in. json.org is particular fiddly as so many
>>> systems
>>>> include it by source (and forget to be explicit about it).
>>>
>>> I have it on my todo list to replace org.json with Jackson in Sesame.
>>> I wrote a Talis RDF/JSON parser and writer using Jackson the other day
>>> and it works famously, so it should be fairly simple to convert the
>>> Sesame Workbench and the SPARQL Results JSON module when I have time.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Attached the current dependencies; I can't see json.org either.
Kudos to Bertrand Delacrétaz for the trick: http://goo.gl/8NJ90
On 27/03/13 10:15, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> funny, we don't have any dependency to the json.org module left in
> Marmotta. Where is Sesame actually using it? The SPARQL JSON writer seems
> to write directly to the output stream.
>
> Maybe the beta2 does not yet include this code anyways? If you have a new
> release with more SPARQL JSON support, we would be very happy, because then
> we can throw away our own code :)
>
> :-)
>
> 2013/3/27 Peter Ansell<an...@gmail.com>
>
>> On 26 March 2013 23:04, Andy Seaborne<an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On 26/03/13 12:47, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 26/03/13 12:33, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25/03/13 16:50, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/03/13 17:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The license for json.org has the linethat makes it in contradiction
>>>>>>> with the definition of open source:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is no longer an issue, since we managed to rewrite some code and
>>>>>> completely removed such dependency (commit
>>>>>> bdb25fedcbb38c311ffb4f08e84505163109718d) with other with better
>>>>>> licensing and performance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would point out that by shipping any system, you take on the
>>>>> responsibilities from the license of that system system, not the part
>>>>> you happen to use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure. In this case the system is Jackson, which was already in use in
>>>> Marmotta: I've just replaced the single usage of json.org by the
>>>> equivalent in Jackson.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the remark; we really appreciate your toil as mentors :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> In this case, having any system like Sesame mention in their NOTICE file,
>>> recursively brings it in. json.org is particular fiddly as so many
>> systems
>>> include it by source (and forget to be explicit about it).
>>
>> I have it on my todo list to replace org.json with Jackson in Sesame.
>> I wrote a Talis RDF/JSON parser and writer using Jackson the other day
>> and it works famously, so it should be fairly simple to convert the
>> Sesame Workbench and the SPARQL Results JSON module when I have time.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>.
On 28 March 2013 19:28, Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> at the moment I have no real patches to send, we just have a small bug fix
> for the SPARQL-JSON writer that we currently host locally in our source
> code, but would replace with your new version once it is available.
>
> But if you want to I can rewrite your JSON result parsers so they use
> Jackson - should be fairly straightforward. Your result writers seem to
> directly write to the output streams anyways. If I find the time I will
> create a pull request in your bitbucket repository :-)
I had an hour to spare yesterday afternoon so I hacked together the
conversion for the writer, and you have completed the parser that I
started but did not complete. Hence, now there are two Pull Requests
#107 [1] and #108 [2] for SES-1726 [3].
I am going away for a few days, but feel free to hack together a
coherent single Pull Request out of the two in the meantime.
Cheers,
Peter
[1] https://bitbucket.org/openrdf/sesame/pull-request/107/replaced-sparql-json-parser-with-jackson
[2] https://bitbucket.org/openrdf/sesame/pull-request/108/ses-1726-unfinished-alternative-to-pull
[3] https://openrdf.atlassian.net/browse/SES-1726
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org>.
Hi Peter,
at the moment I have no real patches to send, we just have a small bug fix
for the SPARQL-JSON writer that we currently host locally in our source
code, but would replace with your new version once it is available.
But if you want to I can rewrite your JSON result parsers so they use
Jackson - should be fairly straightforward. Your result writers seem to
directly write to the output streams anyways. If I find the time I will
create a pull request in your bitbucket repository :-)
Jackson is, BTW, FMPOV the right decision. It is appropriately licensed and
by far the fastest Java JSON writer and parser around. It is even much
faster than Java's Object Streams for marshalling data.
In the coming months, I intend to work a bit on punctual improvements of
SPARQL performance also. Maybe there will be some contributions there as
well. :)
Greetings,
Sebastian
2013/3/28 Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> I implemented the SPARQL JSON reader since beta2 and that
> implementation uses json.org. Since then I implemented an RDF/JSON
> parser using Jackson and based on that experience I am keen to switch
> to using it in Sesame for both reading and writing of SPARQL Results
> JSON, but haven't yet found the chance to implement it. (Feel free to
> donate code changes to Sesame if you have patched versions already
> using Jackson internally!)
>
> The org.json code is also used in the Sesame workbench module, which
> isn't likely to be a dependency of Marmotta.
>
> Peter
>
> On 27 March 2013 19:15, Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > funny, we don't have any dependency to the json.org module left in
> > Marmotta. Where is Sesame actually using it? The SPARQL JSON writer seems
> > to write directly to the output stream.
> >
> > Maybe the beta2 does not yet include this code anyways? If you have a new
> > release with more SPARQL JSON support, we would be very happy, because
> then
> > we can throw away our own code :)
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > 2013/3/27 Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>
> >
> >> On 26 March 2013 23:04, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > On 26/03/13 12:47, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> On 26/03/13 12:33, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 25/03/13 16:50, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On 25/03/13 17:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The license for json.org has the linethat makes it in
> contradiction
> >> >>>>> with the definition of open source:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> This is no longer an issue, since we managed to rewrite some code
> and
> >> >>>> completely removed such dependency (commit
> >> >>>> bdb25fedcbb38c311ffb4f08e84505163109718d) with other with better
> >> >>>> licensing and performance.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I would point out that by shipping any system, you take on the
> >> >>> responsibilities from the license of that system system, not the
> part
> >> >>> you happen to use.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure. In this case the system is Jackson, which was already in use in
> >> >> Marmotta: I've just replaced the single usage of json.org by the
> >> >> equivalent in Jackson.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for the remark; we really appreciate your toil as mentors :-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > In this case, having any system like Sesame mention in their NOTICE
> file,
> >> > recursively brings it in. json.org is particular fiddly as so many
> >> systems
> >> > include it by source (and forget to be explicit about it).
> >>
> >> I have it on my todo list to replace org.json with Jackson in Sesame.
> >> I wrote a Talis RDF/JSON parser and writer using Jackson the other day
> >> and it works famously, so it should be fairly simple to convert the
> >> Sesame Workbench and the SPARQL Results JSON module when I have time.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Peter
> >>
>
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>.
Hi Sebastian,
I implemented the SPARQL JSON reader since beta2 and that
implementation uses json.org. Since then I implemented an RDF/JSON
parser using Jackson and based on that experience I am keen to switch
to using it in Sesame for both reading and writing of SPARQL Results
JSON, but haven't yet found the chance to implement it. (Feel free to
donate code changes to Sesame if you have patched versions already
using Jackson internally!)
The org.json code is also used in the Sesame workbench module, which
isn't likely to be a dependency of Marmotta.
Peter
On 27 March 2013 19:15, Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> funny, we don't have any dependency to the json.org module left in
> Marmotta. Where is Sesame actually using it? The SPARQL JSON writer seems
> to write directly to the output stream.
>
> Maybe the beta2 does not yet include this code anyways? If you have a new
> release with more SPARQL JSON support, we would be very happy, because then
> we can throw away our own code :)
>
> :-)
>
> 2013/3/27 Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>
>
>> On 26 March 2013 23:04, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On 26/03/13 12:47, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On 26/03/13 12:33, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 25/03/13 16:50, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 25/03/13 17:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The license for json.org has the linethat makes it in contradiction
>> >>>>> with the definition of open source:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This is no longer an issue, since we managed to rewrite some code and
>> >>>> completely removed such dependency (commit
>> >>>> bdb25fedcbb38c311ffb4f08e84505163109718d) with other with better
>> >>>> licensing and performance.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I would point out that by shipping any system, you take on the
>> >>> responsibilities from the license of that system system, not the part
>> >>> you happen to use.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sure. In this case the system is Jackson, which was already in use in
>> >> Marmotta: I've just replaced the single usage of json.org by the
>> >> equivalent in Jackson.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the remark; we really appreciate your toil as mentors :-)
>> >
>> >
>> > In this case, having any system like Sesame mention in their NOTICE file,
>> > recursively brings it in. json.org is particular fiddly as so many
>> systems
>> > include it by source (and forget to be explicit about it).
>>
>> I have it on my todo list to replace org.json with Jackson in Sesame.
>> I wrote a Talis RDF/JSON parser and writer using Jackson the other day
>> and it works famously, so it should be fairly simple to convert the
>> Sesame Workbench and the SPARQL Results JSON module when I have time.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter
>>
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org>.
Hi Peter,
funny, we don't have any dependency to the json.org module left in
Marmotta. Where is Sesame actually using it? The SPARQL JSON writer seems
to write directly to the output stream.
Maybe the beta2 does not yet include this code anyways? If you have a new
release with more SPARQL JSON support, we would be very happy, because then
we can throw away our own code :)
:-)
2013/3/27 Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>
> On 26 March 2013 23:04, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 26/03/13 12:47, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 26/03/13 12:33, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 25/03/13 16:50, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 25/03/13 17:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The license for json.org has the linethat makes it in contradiction
> >>>>> with the definition of open source:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is no longer an issue, since we managed to rewrite some code and
> >>>> completely removed such dependency (commit
> >>>> bdb25fedcbb38c311ffb4f08e84505163109718d) with other with better
> >>>> licensing and performance.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I would point out that by shipping any system, you take on the
> >>> responsibilities from the license of that system system, not the part
> >>> you happen to use.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure. In this case the system is Jackson, which was already in use in
> >> Marmotta: I've just replaced the single usage of json.org by the
> >> equivalent in Jackson.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the remark; we really appreciate your toil as mentors :-)
> >
> >
> > In this case, having any system like Sesame mention in their NOTICE file,
> > recursively brings it in. json.org is particular fiddly as so many
> systems
> > include it by source (and forget to be explicit about it).
>
> I have it on my todo list to replace org.json with Jackson in Sesame.
> I wrote a Talis RDF/JSON parser and writer using Jackson the other day
> and it works famously, so it should be fairly simple to convert the
> Sesame Workbench and the SPARQL Results JSON module when I have time.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>.
On 26 March 2013 23:04, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 26/03/13 12:47, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 26/03/13 12:33, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/03/13 16:50, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 25/03/13 17:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The license for json.org has the linethat makes it in contradiction
>>>>> with the definition of open source:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is no longer an issue, since we managed to rewrite some code and
>>>> completely removed such dependency (commit
>>>> bdb25fedcbb38c311ffb4f08e84505163109718d) with other with better
>>>> licensing and performance.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would point out that by shipping any system, you take on the
>>> responsibilities from the license of that system system, not the part
>>> you happen to use.
>>
>>
>> Sure. In this case the system is Jackson, which was already in use in
>> Marmotta: I've just replaced the single usage of json.org by the
>> equivalent in Jackson.
>>
>> Thanks for the remark; we really appreciate your toil as mentors :-)
>
>
> In this case, having any system like Sesame mention in their NOTICE file,
> recursively brings it in. json.org is particular fiddly as so many systems
> include it by source (and forget to be explicit about it).
I have it on my todo list to replace org.json with Jackson in Sesame.
I wrote a Talis RDF/JSON parser and writer using Jackson the other day
and it works famously, so it should be fairly simple to convert the
Sesame Workbench and the SPARQL Results JSON module when I have time.
Cheers,
Peter
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 26/03/13 12:47, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26/03/13 12:33, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> On 25/03/13 16:50, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>> On 25/03/13 17:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>> The license for json.org has the linethat makes it in contradiction
>>>> with the definition of open source:
>>>
>>> This is no longer an issue, since we managed to rewrite some code and
>>> completely removed such dependency (commit
>>> bdb25fedcbb38c311ffb4f08e84505163109718d) with other with better
>>> licensing and performance.
>>
>> I would point out that by shipping any system, you take on the
>> responsibilities from the license of that system system, not the part
>> you happen to use.
>
> Sure. In this case the system is Jackson, which was already in use in
> Marmotta: I've just replaced the single usage of json.org by the
> equivalent in Jackson.
>
> Thanks for the remark; we really appreciate your toil as mentors :-)
In this case, having any system like Sesame mention in their NOTICE
file, recursively brings it in. json.org is particular fiddly as so
many systems include it by source (and forget to be explicit about it).
Good thing, it's OK!
That is quite recent BTW - we used it in Jena and it wasn't resolved at
the time. Writing a JSON parser (using some fast Java I/O already
around) was much quicker than sorting it out and the result is a fast,
streaming parser (you can use it SAX-like).
Andy
>
> Cheers,
>
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On 26/03/13 12:33, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 25/03/13 16:50, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> On 25/03/13 17:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>> The license for json.org has the linethat makes it in contradiction
>>> with the definition of open source:
>>
>> This is no longer an issue, since we managed to rewrite some code and
>> completely removed such dependency (commit
>> bdb25fedcbb38c311ffb4f08e84505163109718d) with other with better
>> licensing and performance.
>
> I would point out that by shipping any system, you take on the
> responsibilities from the license of that system system, not the part
> you happen to use.
Sure. In this case the system is Jackson, which was already in use in
Marmotta: I've just replaced the single usage of json.org by the
equivalent in Jackson.
Thanks for the remark; we really appreciate your toil as mentors :-)
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 25/03/13 16:50, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> On 25/03/13 17:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> The license for json.org has the linethat makes it in contradiction
>> with the definition of open source:
>
> This is no longer an issue, since we managed to rewrite some code and
> completely removed such dependency (commit
> bdb25fedcbb38c311ffb4f08e84505163109718d) with other with better
> licensing and performance.
Just to be clear:
I would point out that by shipping any system, you take on the
responsibilities from the license of that system system, not the part
you happen to use.
Andy
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
On 25/03/13 17:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> The license for json.org has the linethat makes it in contradiction with the definition of open source:
This is no longer an issue, since we managed to rewrite some code and
completely removed such dependency (commit
bdb25fedcbb38c311ffb4f08e84505163109718d) with other with better
licensing and performance.
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
I can't definitely answer this.
You don't include any source code from Sesame?
1/ Where you link to it, via maven dependencies, no problem.
2/ Where you bundle and ship it, you have redistribution responsibilities.
That said, it clearly says "Source code contributions" and reads to me
like an acknowledgement list rather than a strict NOTICE requirement.
There is nothing in LICENSE so do we presume those contributions are
BSD-ish?
Sesame also has an assignment system - if those contributions are under
that, then there was no need to include in NOTICE.txt.
Let's hope someone else has been here before.
Andy
FYI - no action needed -
But it gets messy:
"""
Parts of this product use software developed by JSON.org
(http://www.json.org/). License: http://www.json.org/license.html
"""
and we get into *much* controversy.
Good news is that this has be clarified for Apache:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#json
The license for json.org has the line:
"""The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."""
that makes it in contradiction with the definition of open source:
http://opensource.org/docs/osd
Item 6. "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"
unless you get an exemption
http://java.dzone.com/articles/jsonorg-license-literally-says
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108
(This is why Jena does not use json.org - easier to replace that dela
with it. The fact we have a simpler faster parser is no bad thing
either but the real reason was the rewrite was much less work than the
legal side. It uses the fast I/O but otherwise is independent of the
rest of Jena.)
Andy
On 25/03/13 15:02, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
> Hi Andy, and other mentors,
>
> while trying to figure out what should go into the NOTICE file and what
> not, we realised that the Apache license says that derivative works need to
> contain a copy of the NOTICE of included project. So in case of our binary
> releases that include the Sesame libraries, this would mean we need to
> include the contents of the following file:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/openrdf/sesame/src/master/core/NOTICE.txt
>
> What we are not sure about is whether it would be ok to only mention Sesame
> as we do now, or whether we need to include all the NOTICE content of the
> dependency. What is your opinion on this?
>
> For reference, the Apache license says:
>
> 4d)
> If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
> distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
> include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
> within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
> pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
> of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
> as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
> documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
> within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
> wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
> of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
> do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
> notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
> or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
> that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
> as modifying the License.
>
>
> 2013/3/25 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>
>> On 25/03/13 12:03, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
>>
>>> restart
>>> the release candidate
>>>
>>
>> Sebastian,
>>
>> As Release Manager, could you send a [CANCELLED] message on this thread so
>> that when looking back, the list archive makes it clear as to status?
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andy, and other mentors,
while trying to figure out what should go into the NOTICE file and what
not, we realised that the Apache license says that derivative works need to
contain a copy of the NOTICE of included project. So in case of our binary
releases that include the Sesame libraries, this would mean we need to
include the contents of the following file:
https://bitbucket.org/openrdf/sesame/src/master/core/NOTICE.txt
What we are not sure about is whether it would be ok to only mention Sesame
as we do now, or whether we need to include all the NOTICE content of the
dependency. What is your opinion on this?
For reference, the Apache license says:
4d)
If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
as modifying the License.
2013/3/25 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
> On 25/03/13 12:03, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
>
>> restart
>> the release candidate
>>
>
> Sebastian,
>
> As Release Manager, could you send a [CANCELLED] message on this thread so
> that when looking back, the list archive makes it clear as to status?
>
> Andy
>
[CANCELLED] Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
The vote on this release candidate was cancelled due to licensing concerns.
2013/3/25 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
> On 25/03/13 12:03, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
>
>> restart
>> the release candidate
>>
>
> Sebastian,
>
> As Release Manager, could you send a [CANCELLED] message on this thread so
> that when looking back, the list archive makes it clear as to status?
>
> Andy
>
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 25/03/13 12:03, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
> restart
> the release candidate
Sebastian,
As Release Manager, could you send a [CANCELLED] message on this thread
so that when looking back, the list archive makes it clear as to status?
Andy
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 25/03/13 12:03, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
> We planned to restart
> the release candidate in a few minutes, but if you first want to create a
> list this is very much appreciated and we can still delay the next release
> candidate until you provide it.
There are some points in Fabian's message that I don't see addressed and
need discussion. More in next message.
Andy
>
> Greetings,
>
> Sebastian
>
> 2013/3/25 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>
>> On 25/03/13 11:02, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Fabian,
>>>
>>> thanks for pointing out the thing with the disclaimer. I added the
>>> necessary remote resources so they will be included. How do we continue,
>>> should we restart the vote completely (with 72h)? Or is it enough I
>>> re-upload and you check again?
>>>
>>
>> If you change the code tree, then the src will change. The src must
>> build the binaries.
>>
>> I'll go through Fabian's message and draw up a list of points, then we can
>> sort each one out. Some are from before where we don't seem to have a
>> common understanding of what is necessary and what can be delayed to next
>> release.
>>
>> What I have seen done is to list the changes on the next RC so it's clear
>> what been done to people reading the email list.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> I've having trouble with git repo - I now only see tag "import". Did the
>> tag for the release get undone and not redone? Is it pushed?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Rest of the comments below:
>>>
>>> 2013/3/25 Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The KEYS are okay but could be placed at a location like
>>>> http://marmotta.incubator.**apache.org/KEYS<http://marmotta.incubator.apache.org/KEYS>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They will :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Checking ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-**incubating-src.zip
>>>>
>>>> LICENSE & NOTICE: "software based on Sgvizler license under a
>>>> MIT-style license" in NOTICE but
>>>> "Sgvizler Javascript library, which is available under a "MIT"
>>>> license" in LICENSE. Is there a difference? Not a problem for the
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Fixed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "data based on JSON-LD Test Suite licensed under CC0 License" in
>>>> NOTICE but there is no info in LICENSE - what is CC0? Fix in future
>>>> releases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Creative Commons 0 (basically public domain).
>>>
>>> http://creativecommons.org/**publicdomain/zero/1.0/<http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/>
>>>
>>>
>>> Checking
>>>> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-**incubating-webapp.zip
>>>> LICENSE & NOTICE: "H2 Database Engine under The H2 License, Version
>>>> 1.0" in NOTICE but in LICENSE there is no "H2 License". In LICENSE it
>>>> says "is dual licensed and available
>>>> under a modified version of the MPL 1.1 (Mozilla Public License) or
>>>> under the (unmodified) EPL 1.0 (Eclipse Public License)". You do not
>>>> include a copy of this modified versions. I am really not an expert
>>>> but there might be people who would argue that you need to include a
>>>> copy of such licenses in LICENSE. My understanding of the ASF policies
>>>> is that you should include copies of the license not just pointers.
>>>> People need to be able to verify the licenses without the need to
>>>> follow pointers to websites which may change. In doubt I would include
>>>> the license text.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There is no real doubt here. I copied the NOTICE from the webpage, where
>>> they say it is sufficient. I anyways appended it to the LICENSE of the
>>> webapp and installer distributions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Checking
>>>> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-**incubating-installer.zip
>>>> marmotta-installer-3.0.0-**incubating.jar/META-INF: Missing LICENSE,
>>>> NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
>>>> marmotta.war: Missing DISCLAIMER
>>>>
>>>> Checking
>>>> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-**incubating-ldpath.zip
>>>> NOTICE has a list of included libs but the LICENSE does not list all
>>>> of them -> missing pointers to LICENSES
>>>>
>>>> ldpath-3.0.0-incubating.jar/**META-INF : Missing LICENSE, NOTICE,
>>>> DISCLAIMER
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This is built by the onejar application. The LICENSE, NOTICE, and
>>> DISCLAIMER should be in all the jar files the super-jar contains. I'll
>>> check if there is a way to also include these files in the superjar.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> Sebastian
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andy,
I already removed the old tag because we are preparing a new release
candidate with the fixes included. The old commit has the commit ID:
0e4ecfbdd1ad58a4bb44ff2ee98edc6e991a63b6
(from 3 days ago).
Thanks for going through the list. I have already added all the missing
DISCLAIMER files and fixed the NOTICE and LICENSE where appropriate. I did
not remove the libraries from the NOTICE file so far. We planned to restart
the release candidate in a few minutes, but if you first want to create a
list this is very much appreciated and we can still delay the next release
candidate until you provide it.
Greetings,
Sebastian
2013/3/25 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
> On 25/03/13 11:02, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
>
>> Hi Fabian,
>>
>> thanks for pointing out the thing with the disclaimer. I added the
>> necessary remote resources so they will be included. How do we continue,
>> should we restart the vote completely (with 72h)? Or is it enough I
>> re-upload and you check again?
>>
>
> If you change the code tree, then the src will change. The src must
> build the binaries.
>
> I'll go through Fabian's message and draw up a list of points, then we can
> sort each one out. Some are from before where we don't seem to have a
> common understanding of what is necessary and what can be delayed to next
> release.
>
> What I have seen done is to list the changes on the next RC so it's clear
> what been done to people reading the email list.
>
> Andy
>
> I've having trouble with git repo - I now only see tag "import". Did the
> tag for the release get undone and not redone? Is it pushed?
>
>
>
>> Rest of the comments below:
>>
>> 2013/3/25 Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>
>>
>>
>>> The KEYS are okay but could be placed at a location like
>>> http://marmotta.incubator.**apache.org/KEYS<http://marmotta.incubator.apache.org/KEYS>
>>>
>>
>>
>> They will :)
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Checking ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-**incubating-src.zip
>>>
>>> LICENSE & NOTICE: "software based on Sgvizler license under a
>>> MIT-style license" in NOTICE but
>>> "Sgvizler Javascript library, which is available under a "MIT"
>>> license" in LICENSE. Is there a difference? Not a problem for the
>>> release.
>>>
>>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>
>>
>>> "data based on JSON-LD Test Suite licensed under CC0 License" in
>>> NOTICE but there is no info in LICENSE - what is CC0? Fix in future
>>> releases.
>>>
>>>
>> Creative Commons 0 (basically public domain).
>>
>> http://creativecommons.org/**publicdomain/zero/1.0/<http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/>
>>
>>
>> Checking
>>> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-**incubating-webapp.zip
>>> LICENSE & NOTICE: "H2 Database Engine under The H2 License, Version
>>> 1.0" in NOTICE but in LICENSE there is no "H2 License". In LICENSE it
>>> says "is dual licensed and available
>>> under a modified version of the MPL 1.1 (Mozilla Public License) or
>>> under the (unmodified) EPL 1.0 (Eclipse Public License)". You do not
>>> include a copy of this modified versions. I am really not an expert
>>> but there might be people who would argue that you need to include a
>>> copy of such licenses in LICENSE. My understanding of the ASF policies
>>> is that you should include copies of the license not just pointers.
>>> People need to be able to verify the licenses without the need to
>>> follow pointers to websites which may change. In doubt I would include
>>> the license text.
>>>
>>>
>> There is no real doubt here. I copied the NOTICE from the webpage, where
>> they say it is sufficient. I anyways appended it to the LICENSE of the
>> webapp and installer distributions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Checking
>>> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-**incubating-installer.zip
>>> marmotta-installer-3.0.0-**incubating.jar/META-INF: Missing LICENSE,
>>> NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
>>> marmotta.war: Missing DISCLAIMER
>>>
>>> Checking
>>> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-**incubating-ldpath.zip
>>> NOTICE has a list of included libs but the LICENSE does not list all
>>> of them -> missing pointers to LICENSES
>>>
>>> ldpath-3.0.0-incubating.jar/**META-INF : Missing LICENSE, NOTICE,
>>> DISCLAIMER
>>>
>>>
>> This is built by the onejar application. The LICENSE, NOTICE, and
>> DISCLAIMER should be in all the jar files the super-jar contains. I'll
>> check if there is a way to also include these files in the superjar.
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 25/03/13 11:02, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
> Hi Fabian,
>
> thanks for pointing out the thing with the disclaimer. I added the
> necessary remote resources so they will be included. How do we continue,
> should we restart the vote completely (with 72h)? Or is it enough I
> re-upload and you check again?
If you change the code tree, then the src will change. The src must
build the binaries.
I'll go through Fabian's message and draw up a list of points, then we
can sort each one out. Some are from before where we don't seem to have
a common understanding of what is necessary and what can be delayed to
next release.
What I have seen done is to list the changes on the next RC so it's
clear what been done to people reading the email list.
Andy
I've having trouble with git repo - I now only see tag "import". Did
the tag for the release get undone and not redone? Is it pushed?
>
> Rest of the comments below:
>
> 2013/3/25 Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>
>
>>
>> The KEYS are okay but could be placed at a location like
>> http://marmotta.incubator.apache.org/KEYS
>
>
> They will :)
>
>
>>
>>
>> Checking ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.zip
>>
>> LICENSE & NOTICE: "software based on Sgvizler license under a
>> MIT-style license" in NOTICE but
>> "Sgvizler Javascript library, which is available under a "MIT"
>> license" in LICENSE. Is there a difference? Not a problem for the
>> release.
>>
>
> Fixed.
>
>
>>
>> "data based on JSON-LD Test Suite licensed under CC0 License" in
>> NOTICE but there is no info in LICENSE - what is CC0? Fix in future
>> releases.
>>
>
> Creative Commons 0 (basically public domain).
>
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
>
>
>> Checking
>> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.zip
>> LICENSE & NOTICE: "H2 Database Engine under The H2 License, Version
>> 1.0" in NOTICE but in LICENSE there is no "H2 License". In LICENSE it
>> says "is dual licensed and available
>> under a modified version of the MPL 1.1 (Mozilla Public License) or
>> under the (unmodified) EPL 1.0 (Eclipse Public License)". You do not
>> include a copy of this modified versions. I am really not an expert
>> but there might be people who would argue that you need to include a
>> copy of such licenses in LICENSE. My understanding of the ASF policies
>> is that you should include copies of the license not just pointers.
>> People need to be able to verify the licenses without the need to
>> follow pointers to websites which may change. In doubt I would include
>> the license text.
>>
>
> There is no real doubt here. I copied the NOTICE from the webpage, where
> they say it is sufficient. I anyways appended it to the LICENSE of the
> webapp and installer distributions.
>
>
>
>>
>> Checking
>> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.zip
>> marmotta-installer-3.0.0-incubating.jar/META-INF: Missing LICENSE,
>> NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
>> marmotta.war: Missing DISCLAIMER
>>
>> Checking
>> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.zip
>> NOTICE has a list of included libs but the LICENSE does not list all
>> of them -> missing pointers to LICENSES
>>
>> ldpath-3.0.0-incubating.jar/META-INF : Missing LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
>>
>
> This is built by the onejar application. The LICENSE, NOTICE, and
> DISCLAIMER should be in all the jar files the super-jar contains. I'll
> check if there is a way to also include these files in the superjar.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Sebastian
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi Fabian,
thanks for pointing out the thing with the disclaimer. I added the
necessary remote resources so they will be included. How do we continue,
should we restart the vote completely (with 72h)? Or is it enough I
re-upload and you check again?
Rest of the comments below:
2013/3/25 Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>
>
> The KEYS are okay but could be placed at a location like
> http://marmotta.incubator.apache.org/KEYS
They will :)
>
>
> Checking ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.zip
>
> LICENSE & NOTICE: "software based on Sgvizler license under a
> MIT-style license" in NOTICE but
> "Sgvizler Javascript library, which is available under a "MIT"
> license" in LICENSE. Is there a difference? Not a problem for the
> release.
>
Fixed.
>
> "data based on JSON-LD Test Suite licensed under CC0 License" in
> NOTICE but there is no info in LICENSE - what is CC0? Fix in future
> releases.
>
Creative Commons 0 (basically public domain).
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
> Checking
> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.zip
> LICENSE & NOTICE: "H2 Database Engine under The H2 License, Version
> 1.0" in NOTICE but in LICENSE there is no "H2 License". In LICENSE it
> says "is dual licensed and available
> under a modified version of the MPL 1.1 (Mozilla Public License) or
> under the (unmodified) EPL 1.0 (Eclipse Public License)". You do not
> include a copy of this modified versions. I am really not an expert
> but there might be people who would argue that you need to include a
> copy of such licenses in LICENSE. My understanding of the ASF policies
> is that you should include copies of the license not just pointers.
> People need to be able to verify the licenses without the need to
> follow pointers to websites which may change. In doubt I would include
> the license text.
>
There is no real doubt here. I copied the NOTICE from the webpage, where
they say it is sufficient. I anyways appended it to the LICENSE of the
webapp and installer distributions.
>
> Checking
> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.zip
> marmotta-installer-3.0.0-incubating.jar/META-INF: Missing LICENSE,
> NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
> marmotta.war: Missing DISCLAIMER
>
> Checking
> ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.zip
> NOTICE has a list of included libs but the LICENSE does not list all
> of them -> missing pointers to LICENSES
>
> ldpath-3.0.0-incubating.jar/META-INF : Missing LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
>
This is built by the onejar application. The LICENSE, NOTICE, and
DISCLAIMER should be in all the jar files the super-jar contains. I'll
check if there is a way to also include these files in the superjar.
Greetings,
Sebastian
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
2013/3/22 Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org>:
> The SHA1 checksum of the archive is
> 670d7c5d4d524acb86665f234dac4ade16be8da6.
Which archive are you referring to? I checked:
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.zip
gpg: GOOD
md5 : GOOD (08c056e68d0ce01e61e18258913aa74d)
sha1 : GOOD (9f3f6b0ca2122fda11cf8f68a7bd8abbed583fca)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.tar.gz
gpg: GOOD
md5 : GOOD (ef7ee1f1e54a0e0dd09103b30c537767)
sha1 : GOOD (87c562b8acdf94bc4d2a458e3a27d01632b18c7c)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.zip
gpg: GOOD
md5 : GOOD (75ac74d568dafa9e0db50ccd782f123b)
sha1 : GOOD (50b7e0a8f4bf6766d85814fa02ffb1edffeb7e56)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.zip
gpg: GOOD
md5 : GOOD (5e10ab1d574d9960e81b6da378de81d5)
sha1 : GOOD (cf7755c50691f728e40198aba7097adca1ae6981)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.tar.gz
gpg: GOOD
md5 : GOOD (1def0b50794ff1103cab983f27d06562)
sha1 : GOOD (3f0b0dbccc60155ab5281d2b396bc509297be058)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.tar.gz
gpg: GOOD
md5 : GOOD (bb4d2d5bdcf7e816200d77f570021805)
sha1 : GOOD (6ccbf473c9e7b8179a8fcad78a26a4a88084d6c3)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.tar.gz
gpg: GOOD
md5 : GOOD (fabc5f09d95db68f18e2e82fcd91b00f)
sha1 : GOOD (3f76460c5dbc7f93bef25c78333cc2685748c512)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.zip
gpg: GOOD
md5 : GOOD (483099c177ea5d653abd429eface6a35)
sha1 : GOOD (670d7c5d4d524acb86665f234dac4ade16be8da6)
The KEYS are okay but could be placed at a location like
http://marmotta.incubator.apache.org/KEYS
Checking ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.zip
LICENSE & NOTICE: "software based on Sgvizler license under a
MIT-style license" in NOTICE but
"Sgvizler Javascript library, which is available under a "MIT"
license" in LICENSE. Is there a difference? Not a problem for the
release.
"data based on JSON-LD Test Suite licensed under CC0 License" in
NOTICE but there is no info in LICENSE - what is CC0? Fix in future
releases.
BUILD: Success
Release matches tag: Okay
Checking
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.zip
LICENSE & NOTICE: "H2 Database Engine under The H2 License, Version
1.0" in NOTICE but in LICENSE there is no "H2 License". In LICENSE it
says "is dual licensed and available
under a modified version of the MPL 1.1 (Mozilla Public License) or
under the (unmodified) EPL 1.0 (Eclipse Public License)". You do not
include a copy of this modified versions. I am really not an expert
but there might be people who would argue that you need to include a
copy of such licenses in LICENSE. My understanding of the ASF policies
is that you should include copies of the license not just pointers.
People need to be able to verify the licenses without the need to
follow pointers to websites which may change. In doubt I would include
the license text.
Checking
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.zip
marmotta-installer-3.0.0-incubating.jar/META-INF: Missing LICENSE,
NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
marmotta.war: Missing DISCLAIMER
Checking
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.zip
NOTICE has a list of included libs but the LICENSE does not list all
of them -> missing pointers to LICENSES
ldpath-3.0.0-incubating.jar/META-INF : Missing LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
Checking staged repo:
2013/3/22 Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org>:
> A staged Maven repository is available for review at:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemarmotta-013/
I checked arbitrary files in the staged repo. All JARs I checked are
missing the DISCLAIMER in META-INF. I assume this is a general problem
with the build system. But the DISCLAIMER has to be there.
Summary: I still believe that the NOTICE file is the wrong place for
listing included libs. It is for legal notices, only. Additionally, I
would suggest to include copies of licenses in the LICENSE file. But
since I am also still learning a lot about this legal stuff, others
may have another view on this. All information seem to be available so
this would not a blocker for this release.
But I am sorry, but because of the missing files in the released
artifacts, especially the missing DISCLAIMER which is a must of
incubating projects, I have to vote -1 for all artifacts except the
original source release package
(apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.zip), which is fine.
+1 for releasing apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.zip
-1 for releasing the binary artifacts produced from the source release
Best,
- Fabian
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt
Re: [] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 25/03/13 08:48, Raffaele Palmieri wrote:
> In my small way I downloaded source, performed build and some tests
> regarding import and selecting some test data, also on MySql database.
> I think it's a good base for the intended purpose of project.
> So, I express a positive vote hoping of being able to contribute in some
> ways to the project.
> +1,
> Raffaele.
Thank you for voting and I hope you find Marmotta useful.
It's an open community - everyone is welcome to comment and vote even if
overall the process requires 3 IPMC votes to become a release. The
formal side of releases and voting is not the whole picture. This is
especially true of this first incubator release.
Andy
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Raffaele Palmieri <ra...@gmail.com>.
In my small way I downloaded source, performed build and some tests
regarding import and selecting some test data, also on MySql database.
I think it's a good base for the intended purpose of project.
So, I express a positive vote hoping of being able to contribute in some
ways to the project.
+1,
Raffaele.
On 25 March 2013 09:35, Sebastian Schaffert
<se...@gmail.com>wrote:
> From my side also
>
> +1
>
> :)
>
> 2013/3/24 Rupert Westenthaler <ru...@gmail.com>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Sebastian Schaffert
> > <ss...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating
> > > [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> > >
> >
> > validated
> >
> > * checksums & keys of both release and staged artifacts
> > * build was successful
> > * LICENSE, NOTICE look great
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Thanks for preparing the release. Well done!
> >
> > best
> > Rupert
> >
> > > ========
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > | Rupert Westenthaler rupert.westenthaler@gmail.com
> > | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907
> > | A-5500 Bischofshofen
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
>From my side also
+1
:)
2013/3/24 Rupert Westenthaler <ru...@gmail.com>
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Sebastian Schaffert
> <ss...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating
> > [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >
>
> validated
>
> * checksums & keys of both release and staged artifacts
> * build was successful
> * LICENSE, NOTICE look great
>
> +1
>
> Thanks for preparing the release. Well done!
>
> best
> Rupert
>
> > ========
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Sebastian
>
>
>
> --
> | Rupert Westenthaler rupert.westenthaler@gmail.com
> | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907
> | A-5500 Bischofshofen
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Rupert Westenthaler <ru...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Sebastian Schaffert
<ss...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating
> [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
validated
* checksums & keys of both release and staged artifacts
* build was successful
* LICENSE, NOTICE look great
+1
Thanks for preparing the release. Well done!
best
Rupert
> ========
>
> Greetings,
>
> Sebastian
--
| Rupert Westenthaler rupert.westenthaler@gmail.com
| Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907
| A-5500 Bischofshofen
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi!
On 22/03/13 11:56, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Marmotta PMC votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating
> [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
+1
Checked signature, build, dependencies and license and notice files.
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Jakob Frank <ja...@apache.org>.
After some hours of checking, let's hope I didn't miss something...
On 22 March 2013 11:56, Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org> wrote:
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating
> [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
+1
for the next vote-mail, it would be good to write the deadline for votes
explicitly in the mail.
Best,
Jakob
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <na...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Sebastian Schaffert <sschaffert@apache.org
> wrote:
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Marmotta PMC votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating
> [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
Checked signatures, build, and dependencies. Everything looks good.
+1 (binding)
Best Regards,
Nandana
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC3)
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Marmotta PMC votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating
> [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
+1
Looks great!
Congratulations to Sebastian for seeing this through.
Andy
Minor comment:
KEYS is called "KEYS.asc"
.asc is also the ASCII/armor signature extension.
But it's KEYS in git and is referred to as KEYS in KEYS.asc itself.
Suggest renaming as KEYS for next time.