That will make a big impact on documentation. Do we need to vote on skipping 2.6 entirely. I'd rather not assume that this was enough to cancel the release and find out later that we needed to have it for some reason.
Thanks Troy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Masanz, James J. Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:33 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: releases questions > We need to figure out if the UMLS license is compatible, if its not > compatible it cannot be included. It's not compatible, so I suggest skipping 2.6 and I can shift focus entirely to 3.0, which according to the release notes will have UMLS separately downloadable. -- James > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-884- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jörn Kottmann > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 2:16 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: releases questions > > On 11/19/2012 09:49 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote: > > Mentors, > > > > I have a couple questions related to releases > > > > 1)How long should we expect for feedback on a release candidate from > mentors? At what point is a reminder in order? > > I don't mind receiving a reminder off list, once in a while I need at > least a day to respond. > > > There are two threads related to that question: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ctakes-dev/201211 > > .m > > box/%3C924DE05C19409B438EB81DE683A942D922237B%40CHEXMBX1A.CHBOSTON.O > > RG > > %3E > > I spoke about it with Pei, this RC contains trove4j (LGPL) which is > not compatible with the Apache license, in that state you cannot > release it and he send some follow up mails to the list here afterwards. > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ctakes-dev/201211 > > .m > > box/%3C996FC801C05DF64A84246A106FACACD002BC21%40MSGPEXCHA08A.mfad.mf > > ro > > ot.org%3E > > > > 2) Is there something else that you wait on or look for from the > community or the release managers that has been lacking? > > > > 3)I haven't seen an answer to the question of "Is it a hard > requirement that we not include the subset of UMLS that we had > included in cTAKES 2.5 in our Apache cTAKES incubating releases?" > > > We need to figure out if the UMLS license is compatible, if its not > compatible it cannot be included. The UMLS license is not listed on > the Apache 3rd party license page, in that case you need to post on > legal so they can have a look. > > There are two ways here to get further with the UMLS problem: > a) Send a mail to the legal list to discuss the license > b) Exclude the UMLS dictionary from the release > > Jörn
