LGTM
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:16AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Done. Fixed the copyright and Apache License, Version 2.0 text. > > D. > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 25.01.2015 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > > I have updated the LICENSE and NOTICE files based on the latest comments > > > from Brane. Please take a look and let me know if additional changes are > > > required. > > > > > > LICENSE (added the MIT clause at the end) > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE.txt;h=90666d8b2f1b347e2b4942f0709dbaae6f050c01;hb=refs/heads/sprint-1 > > > > > > NOTICE (removed runtime dependencies) > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE.txt;h=a3c19952c116184651e2bd9ec626b7d0af463f1d;hb=refs/heads/sprint-1 > > > > Better. :) > > > > The name of the ALv2 in NOTICE is still not correct. > > > > The copyright year at the top of NOTICE is wrong: > > > > * There was no Ignite release in 2014, so there can't be a copyright > > notice for that year. The copyright notice applies to releases, not > > to the contents of the repository. Even if the repository is public, > > it's contents have not been "released" by the ASF. > > > > * It's more correct to use just the year of the latest release; > > previous source releases will contain older versions of NOTICE, so > > the year will always be correct for whichever release you're looking > > at. The copyright notice should read: > > > > "Copyright 2015 The Apache Software Foundation" > > > > assuming, of course, that you'll make a release this year ... :) > > > > -- Brane > > > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> On 25.01.2015 03:19, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> I have added the NOTICE.txt file for Apache Ignite to sprint-1 branch > > >> with > > >>> a list of all dependencies we have: > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE.txt;h=dbf2072f0bb3bc447fc4d478387aabb629dca8f6;hb=refs/heads/sprint-1 > > >>> Please review and provide comments. > > >> First of all, there is no "Apache 2.0 license". It's called the "Apache > > >> License, Version 2.0"; it's important to use the exact name of the > > >> license everywhere. > > >> > > >> > > >>> Also, I have a couple of questions: > > >>> > > >>> 1. Should we include optional runtime dependencies, or only source code > > >>> dependencies? > > >> No. The NOTICE file must describe the source release, nothing more and > > >> nothing less. In other words, if a dependency is not included in the > > >> source bundle, it should not be mentioned in NOTICE. Also note that > > >> whatever is mentioned in NOTICE should, in general, also have a section > > >> in LICENSE, although it's neither necessary nor desired to have several > > >> copies of whole license texts there. > > >> > > >> See the following two files for an example of how this is done: > > >> > > >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/NOTICE?view=markup > > >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/LICENSE?view=markup > > >> > > >> The correct place to mention (mandatory or optional, source or binary) > > >> dependencies that are not part of the source package is in a README > > >> file, or other documentation about installing Ignite. > > >> > > >>> 2. If should should include optional runtime dependencies, is it OK to > > >> have > > >>> a runtime dependency on LGPL libraries? > > >> It's perfectly OK to have optional dependencies on code that's licensed > > >> under GPL or LGPL. The code that uses those libraries can be part of the > > >> regular source distribution, and even of convenience binary packages, as > > >> long as those binaries can still be used without such dependencies. > > >> > > >> For example, Subversion up to 1.7 had an optional dependency on Neon, > > >> which is an HTTP client library distributed under GPL. We had a script > > >> that would download the recommended version of Neon, and our makefiles > > >> could build that and enable HTTP protocol support. But we didn't mention > > >> it in NOTICE or LICENSE, and Subversion could be built without Neon. > > >> > > >> -- Brane > > >> > > > >
