Hi,
-1 (binding). The LICENSE file mentions 2 MIT licensed pieces of software but
we are not including the copyright or text of the respective MIT license as
required by terms of the MIT license. [1] Normally in a source release you
would add a local file pointer to the full text in LICENSE [2]. I would vote +1
on another RC if there pointer to the full MIT license text added.
For info on ASF policy and why I voted -1 see [3] ("meet all requirements of
ASF policy”) [4] (“Every ASF release MUST comply with ASF licensing policy")
and [5] ("The component license itself MUST either be appended or else stored
elsewhere in the package”).
But again just a reminder that a -1 is not a veto, a release only needs 3 +1
and more +1s than -1s to be made a release. People can keep voting and people
can change their votes at any time, including those who have previously voted
+1 on this.
I checked:
- signatures and hashed good
- LICENSE and NOTICE ok
- all source files have ASF headers
- no unexpected binary files in source release
- unable to compile from source (with some issues)
- tests pass
I took a quick look at the connivance binary release and found no obvious
issues, it does however suffer from the same licensing issue mentioned above.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
3. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval
4. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing
5. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-file
