Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
On 4/20/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:59:30PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: -1 Bill Stoddard is correct in his understanding of http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases. The fact that other people have voted +1 without verifying that the release adheres to Incubator policy is a bit disturbing, but that's why we have multiple sets of eyes on these things. More than a bit, if you ask me. People even asking for a vote for a release without a NOTICE file is like, seriously messed up. What is going on around here lately? Thanks for volunteering Leo to add details of the NOTICE file to the Incubator release policy :) -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
Hey Dan, I wrote a long-ish e-mail about all this, but I don't think its going to help anyone. So I apologize for any and all confusion. Concretely... On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 01:05:33AM -0400, Dan Diephouse wrote: I am really confused by the reaction to this. I don't see any reason to be puzzled or upset. I don't want to make this a bigger issue than it is, but: 1. The project is incubating and this is the first time its done an Apache release. There are a lot of check boxes that need to be checked to make Apache happy. Overlooking a NOTICE file that almost no one looks at doesn't seem like that big of a jump to me. I can understand why you don't see that, but that viewpoint should change. With an M1 release, I think everyone was a bit more worried whether the damn thing worked at all. As we move toward a .0 release things will certainly get more cleaned up. 2. Incubating release don't need to conform to Apache policy as far as I understand it. Only to whats outlined in the release section [1]. Thats why Roller can release with LGPL dependencies. So in this light, the NOTICE file shouldn't be a hold up, no? Only -incubator instead of -incubating can. Using LGPL dependencies is about policy. This is about what is legal. Besides complying with policy, you need to comply with the law, which involves complying with the terms and conditions of a variety of licenses. As an example, ServiceMix redistributes jars under an apache license which have NOTICEs applying to them. Thus the appropriate attributions *must* then be kept around (so says the license), so not having notices and stuff in place means a license breach, which is not at all about policy. Its illegal. As another example, CDDL-licensed things explicitly prohibit getting rid of *any* legal notices (which is common sense anyway). Doing illegal stuff can get us and our users sued. Hope that clarifies things. LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
James, dude, On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 07:15:48AM +0100, James Strachan wrote: On 4/20/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:59:30PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: -1 Bill Stoddard is correct in his understanding of http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases. The fact that other people have voted +1 without verifying that the release adheres to Incubator policy is a bit disturbing, but that's why we have multiple sets of eyes on these things. More than a bit, if you ask me. People even asking for a vote for a release without a NOTICE file is like, seriously messed up. What is going on around here lately? Thanks for volunteering Leo to add details of the NOTICE file to the Incubator release policy :) *sigh*. I feel like a broken record these days. Nowhere does any policy ever say you can do stuff which is not permitted by law or for which you have no license. To state the reverse in a policy would be rather, well, redundant. There is ample documentation out there on our websites (and more in the works) to help with complying with the law and various licenses. To give you an idea. I have volunteered to help with a less confusing contribution policy. You can find it at http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/contribution_policy.html I have also volunteered time and effort to help with a less confusing third party contribution policy, of which you can find a draft at http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html The result of these documents will be folded into the incubator policies as appropriate in due course (and I might very well be the person to take care of some of that), but we're not quite ready for any of that yet. Until that time, each and every project needs to figure it out on its own. I have previously written a whole bunch of documentation for different projects on how to do releases, eg, see some old info at http://wiki.apache.org/avalon/AvalonReleaseManagerHowto and I have also been helping out for several years now to get that kind of info on the central ASF website about this stuff, eg http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases which is referred to many, many times from the incubator website. The relevant section of that documentation (for this thread) is http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license which, I would think, is already quite clear. Thanks for volunteering to make it more clear. I wouldn't really know how. LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
On 4/21/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Leo Simons wrote: James, dude, *sigh*. I feel like a broken record these days. Nowhere does any policy ever say you can do stuff which is not permitted by law or for which you have no license. To state the reverse in a policy would be rather, well, redundant. There is ample documentation out there on our websites (and more in the works) to help with complying with the law and various licenses. No, but the legal aspect isn't necessarily the concept looming largest in a developer's mind. So a simple checkbox on the page (I'll do it myself in a few minutes, if I figure out how to frob the site) to the effect of: 'Have the licences of any/all bundled code been identified and noted in the release? Has a NOTICE file been included that summarises them and their requirements where they differ from the Apache licence's? Have their requirements been met?' would, IMHO, be a goodness. Bingo! Ken hit the nail on the head!!! A checklist would do wonders for podlings and preparing releases. Even though I've been through the Incubator before, a lot has changed since that time. Having been around the ASF since the Geronimo incubation began (August 2003), it was never clear to me why these policies were in place and now I know why - it's a legal issue. Until now that was never clear to me (I certainly understand that there are legal issues and there are many files required, but linking the two in my mind just didn't happen - maybe I'm at fault for not drawing the correct relation between the two). Ken is absolutely correct in noting that developers are not of the same mindset when cranking out a release as the folks who drafted the Incubator release policies. The main issue at hand is that the release requirements are spread all around in various documents which makes it tough to make sure every aspect has been fulfilled. In addition to these documents, I think a checklist would do wonders for smoothing the way for future podling projects and I'm certainly willing to help Ken flesh out just such a checklist. Furthermore, looking at other projects that have recently graduated is most definitely *not* a good way to find proper release examples as some don't even have a LICENSE file, let alone a NOTICE or even the word Incubator or Incubating in the release name. Developers always look for code examples to follow and incubation is no different. Pointing out a couple or three projects that have graduated, have met 100% of the requirements and actually are a good representation would help immensely. Being able to poke around a project that has been qualified by the Incubator PMC as having met all requirements would short circuit a lot of the frustrations. Let's try to work together to remedy this situation in the interest of all parties involved and make it easier for future podlings. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
