Hi all, 2015-09-07 18:36 GMT+02:00 Andy Seaborne <[email protected]>:
> On 07/09/15 14:32, Reto Gmür wrote: > >> >The binaries have had the NOTICE and LICENSE files replaced in both jar >>> >and sources.jar. These miss the necessary declarations. >>> > >>> >> I don't think anything changed here. Do you think something need to be >> changed for the release candidate to be acceptable (the vote is on the >> source zip linked in the original mail). >> > > There are two strands of issue here. A general one about approving > binaries and a point about distributing modified Jena as binary without > it's NOTICE and LICENSE files. > > > Approving binaries: > > Binaries must correspond to a release. > > The distribution mechanism for binaries is via > repository.ao/content/repositories/releases/org/apache/... > > Note "releases". > > Material that is published through the Apache maven repository needs sort > of VOTE. It transfers the legal liability from the RM to the foundation for > one thing. > > Surely, a "+1" ought to include checking what is produced is correct. > I think what we are meant and required to vote on is a "source release". I agree with Roy Fielding's point on that in a previous discussion on general@incubator [1], basically we vote and release open source code (the source release), binaries can be seen as a "convenience artifact" in that view. > > > Removing NOTICE and LICENSE: > > Clerezza is redistributing modified Jena binaries via > repository.ao/content/*releases* without the NOTICE and LICENSE from > Jena. Xerces, for example, cause material in LICENSE and some BSD code > causes material in NOTICE. > if we do redistribute modified Jena sources or binaries I think we need to mention that in the NOTICE file, if I understand [2] correctly. Regards, Tommaso > > Andy > > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what > [1] : http://markmail.org/message/yzetzkhfahrlv5um [2] : http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundled-vs-non-bundled
