:-) I haven't deleted the staging repo yet. Thanks.
On 29 April 2010 17:19, David Jencks <[email protected]> wrote: > It might be a bit late but would you consider releasing the artifacts that > don't have problems and don't depend on the jpa subproject and just redoing > the jpa and the stuff that consumes it (samples I'd guess)? > > thanks > david jencks > > On Apr 29, 2010, at 7:01 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote: > >> Based on the response on legal-discuss I'm cancelling this vote and >> building a new release candidate. >> >> Thanks for your votes so far and patience ! >> >> Jeremy >> >> >> On 28 April 2010 15:22, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I've raised it on legal-discuss. Has the following option been >>> considered to satisfy the "... and include the License file at >>> glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt.": >>> >>> Include that LICENSE.txt file separately from the project's LICENSE >>> file in a directory called glassfish/bootstrap/legal directory within >>> the jar/zip AND include the CDDL only in the project's LICENSE file >>> located at the root of the zip. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jeremy >>> >>> On 28 April 2010 14:41, Donald Woods <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Yep, after recent discussions about this on the Geronimo lists, we'll be >>>> updating the text in the OpenJPA licenses for our next set of release >>>> artifacts. >>>> >>>> -Donald >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/27/10 5:43 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote: >>>>> On 27 April 2010 15:51, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27 April 2010 14:42, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jeremy, >>>>>>>> I realized that I failed to review a few things. Can you give me a few >>>>>>>> hours? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sure, I was hoping to get 3 IPMC binding +1s before calling the vote. >>>>>>> We have 2 - Guillaume and you at the moment and Dims has just told me >>>>>>> he'll ping me back later today. >>>>>> >>>>>> So reviewing a Geronimo release (which had this same issue) made me come >>>>>> back and take a look at Aries. >>>>>> >>>>>> For dual license files like: >>>>>> jpa-0.1-incubating/jpa-container/src/main/resources/org/apache/aries/jpa/container/parsing/impl/persistence.xsd.rsrc >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe we should be including both licenses (as explained in the >>>>>> header of the files). We are currently only including the CDDL license >>>>>> (this may have been my mistake -- in saying the LICENSE information in >>>>>> the RC1 jar file was correct...). I think we should be including the >>>>>> full license text from >>>>>> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html (i.e. both >>>>>> licenses), then choosing the CDDL license in the NOTICE file. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we were only including the CDDL license in the RC1 jar file, then I >>>>>> should have caught this last time... Apologies. >>>>>> >>>>>> If others agree, afraid we'll need to update... >>>>> >>>>> Is there a precedent for this? The recent 2.0.0 OpenJPA binary and >>>>> source zip have a LICENSE.txt with just the CDDL in it, no GPL license >>>>> text. Has this been discussed on a list somewhere - I couldn't see >>>>> anything recently on legal-discuss@ - it seems there is some >>>>> inconsistency. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jeremy >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --kevan >>>>> >>>> >>> > >
