On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
<snip>
Please note, I didn't actually vote on the release, I just pointed out
a few things that probably ought to change. I didn't vote because I
don't want to go and review all those very many binaries (or the build
process that creates them) and I'm not familiar enough with the
codebase to somehow "know" that all those binaries are somehow ok. If
I had thought these minor tidbits that I raise are enough to actually
vote -1, I would've made that clear, sorry that it wasn't.
Even if I _did_ vote, releases are majority votes, and 2 +1 beats a
single -1. Its just you need 3 votes.
In other words, all you need is one more +1 :)
Nick and Bryant,
I agree with Leo that the more accurate LICENSE/NOTICE files are
preferrable. I probably would not change my vote for this reason.
However, I'll make this easier... Digging some more, I found the
following issues, which I missed earlier:
axiom-api and axiom-impl jars
* both contain NOTICES with "Portions copyright IBM" statements.
Those aren't mentioned in your NOTICE
xml-apis
* NOTICE contains copyright statements for ibm, sun, and w3c
* contains additional license documentation (i.e. LICENSE.dom-
documentation.txt, LICENSE.dom-software.txt, and LICENSE.sax.txt). If
applicable, they need to be reflected in the wink license.
jcip-annotations
* i believe that this is licensed under creative commons
attribution, yet is not mentioned in either the license or the notice
I'm changing my vote to a -1.
--kevan
