Ahh OK James, sorry forgot Pei opened it. Pei, can you please close it?
Thanks! Cheers, Chris On 1/19/13 6:49 PM, "Masanz, James J." <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Chris, > >I don't have access to close the LEGAL issue that Pei opened. Am I >supposed to get that or is that limited to some subgroup of Apache >committers > >________________________________________ >From: ctakes-dev-return-1067-Masanz.James=mayo....@incubator.apache.org >[ctakes-dev-return-1067-Masanz.James=mayo....@incubator.apache.org] on >behalf of Mattmann, Chris A (388J) [[email protected]] >Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 2:30 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release > >Great job! Feel free to close the LEGAL issue now. > >On 1/19/13 11:53 AM, "Masanz, James J." <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Now that 48 hours passed since I added the comment to LEGAL-154 about >>lazy consensus, I've added another comment that cTAKES will proceed by >>lazy consensus with including the index of words and word counts. >> >>-- James >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ctakes-dev-return-1045-Masanz.James=mayo....@incubator.apache.org >>> >>>[mailto:[email protected] >>>g >>>] >>> On Behalf Of Masanz, James J. >>> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:40 AM >>> To: '[email protected]' >>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release >>> >>> Thanks Chris! >>> I added such a comment to LEGAL-154. >>> >>> -- James >>> >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: >>> > ctakes-dev-return-1044-Masanz.James=mayo....@incubator.apache.org >>> > >>>[mailto:[email protected]. >>> > org] >>> > On Behalf Of Mattmann, Chris A (388J) >>> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:33 AM >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release >>> > >>> > Hi James, >>> > >>> > >>> > On 1/17/13 7:14 AM, "Masanz, James J." <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >Pei had opened LEGAL-154 >>> > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-154 >>> > >and that received a comment from Craig L Russell, stating the >>> > >intended use seemed ok to him. >>> > > >>> > >Can you suggest how we should proceed with that so the issue can be >>> > >considered 'cleared'? >>> > >>> > Yep here's how: put a comment on that issue that via lazy consensus, >>> > you are going to assume that in 48 hours if there are no objections >>> > that everyone is happy with Craig's comment and that cTAKES will >>> proceed. >>> > >>> > In the meanwhile the VOTE just stays open and hopefully in 48 hours, >>> > Jukka and/or others will be willing to give it a +1 at that point. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Chris >>> > >>> > > >>> > >Thanks, >>> > >James Masanz >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> -----Original Message----- >>> > >> From: >>> > >> ctakes-dev-return-1041-Masanz.James=mayo....@incubator.apache.org >>> > >> >>> > >>>>>[mailto:[email protected]. >>> > >>org >>> > >>] >>> > >> On Behalf Of Jukka Zitting >>> > >> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:30 AM >>> > >> To: ctakes-dev >>> > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release >>> > >> >>> > >> Hi, >>> > >> >>> > >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Chen, Pei >>> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >> > This is a call for a vote on releasing the following candidate >>>as >>> > >>Apache >>> > >> cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating. >>> > >> >>> > >> +0 >>> > >> >>> > >> The release looks pretty good, but I'd feel more comfortable >>>voting >>> > >>+1 if the licensing status discussed with RC4 got documented >>>better >>> > >>and ideally cleared through a LEGAL issue. Pei's rationale about >>> > >>the data falling under the normal contributor license sounds >>> > >>convincing, but I'm not intimate enough with copyright law to be >>> > >>able to tell whether those files could instead be interpreted as >>> > >>derivative works of the upstream data and thus constrained by the >>> upstream license. >>> > >> >>> > >> BR, >>> > >> >>> > >> Jukka Zitting >> >
