On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license >> >> > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright >> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. >> > >> > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright >> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the >> > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. >> >> It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;) >> >> +1 from me. >> >> > Sorry but you're incorrect. The copyright claim is already present by > copying in their license file. > BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a notice file https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262 There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded. > > >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]>: >> > >> > >> > >> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit >> : >> > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product >> includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement >> (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it >> there. >> > >> > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file. >> > >> > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in >> notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you >> let users do again this job which is insanely bad. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit >> : >> > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded >> dependency) include >> > >> > This product includes software developed at >> > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/) >> > >> > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need >> to declare any notice. >> > >> > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no >> bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was >> not sure it was that ok to completely drop it. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > yep, as written ;) >> > >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >> > >> > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]>: >> > Romain, >> > >> > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right? >> > >> > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >> a écrit : >> > Hi! >> > >> > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7. >> > >> > Here is the staging repo: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049 >> > The source distribution can be found here: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip >> > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5 >> > >> > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10). >> > >> > [+1] ship it >> > [+0] meh, don’t care >> > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason} >> > >> > The VOTE is open for 72h. >> > >> > Here is my +1. >> > >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >> > >> > >> > >> >>
