Brane, 1. The license files you are seeing are used for the binary builds and are not related to the source code. I believe we are not violating any ASF policies here by having these files under the source tree.
2. The classes in "org.jdk8.backport" package are standard Java8 classes copied over to our source tree. The headers are standard headers from the java source code: See here for example: http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/jdk/openjdk/6-b27/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java The whole OpenJDK is licensed under GPL w/ CPE, however, some classes from java.util.concurrent as also released to the public domain by Doug Lee. These classes are dual licensed, and I am not sure why we need to waste time asking if the code submitted to the "public domain" is allowed under ASF. Public domain code is clearly allowed. Can you please comment on (1) and (2)? D. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13.03.2015 04:42, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > Checksums are ok > > Signature is ok > > rat report looks good > > > When I run RAT it on the release package I still see GPL license files > in ./modules (even if the code itself is no longer there), and some > other licenses that apparently aren't associated with any actual code. > The 'mvn clean validate -Pcheck-licenses' ignores these files, but why > are they there in the first place? I'm talking about these files: > > ./modules/aop/licenses/aspectj-epl-license.txt > ./modules/core/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/gnu-gplv2ce-license.txt > ./modules/geospatial/licenses/jts-lgpl-license.txt > ./modules/hibernate/licenses/hibernate-lgpl-2.1-license.txt > ./modules/indexing/licenses/h2-epl-license.txt > ./modules/scalar/licenses/scala-bsd-license.txt > ./modules/schedule/licenses/cron4j-lgpl-2.1-license.txt > ./modules/ssh/licenses/jcraft-revised-bsd.txt > ./modules/tools/licenses/jodd-revised-bsd.txt > ./modules/urideploy/licenses/jtidy-license.txt > ./modules/visor-console/licenses/jcraft-revised-bsd.txt > ./modules/visor-console/licenses/jline-bsd-license.txt > ./modules/visor-console/licenses/scala-bsd-license.txt > > > > > I'm also very confused by the license headers in org.jdk8.backport files: > > /* > * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER. > * > * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it > * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only, as > * published by the Free Software Foundation. Oracle designates this > * particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as provided > * by Oracle in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code. > * > * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT > * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or > * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License > * version 2 for more details (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that > * accompanied this code). > * > * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > version > * 2 along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, > * Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. > * > * Please contact Oracle, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA > * or visit www.oracle.com if you need additional information or have any > * questions. > */ > > /* > * This file is available under and governed by the GNU General Public > * License version 2 only, as published by the Free Software Foundation. > * However, the following notice accompanied the original version of this > * file: > * > * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166 > * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at > * http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ > */ > > > > I have no clue how something can be licensed under GPL2 and released to > the public domain at the same time. Is there some kind of announcement > anywhere that we can link to that makes this clear? Because as thing > stand now, if we release this, we'd be opening the ASF to legal action > from Oracle. > > I think we simply don't know enough at this point. I propose we take > this question to general@incubator, maybe someone there has had > experience with similar cases. > > > -- Brane > > > > sha1sum file looks good, but md5sum still has a weird format. At least > now > > it is easy to validate, so issue for me. > > > > -1 however (sorry) because > > > > - top level directory is called incubator-ignite-ce2230b, should be > > incubator-ignite-1.0, I believe. Also, it'd make sense to name the > archive > > and sum files in the same fashion. This way, once the RC is accepted > to the > > release all you need to do is to rename the directory but the file > names > > will remain the same. > > > > Otherwise, if you rename the diretory inside of the archive, you'll get > the > > wrong checksums and would need to redo the Vote technically. > > > > Cos > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:14PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > >> I have uploaded the new RC3 release candidate to: > >> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3 > >> > >> The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got for RC2: > >> > >> 1. Added DISCLAIMER.txt > >> 2. Added DEVNOTES.txt > >> 3. Updated NOTICE.txt with section about "org.jdk8.backport" package > >> released to public domain under creative commons. > >> 4. Removed "licenses" folder > >> > >> Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are > available > >> in DEVNOTES.txt file. > >> > >> Please start voting. > >> > >> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 > >> 0 - don't care either way > >> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why) > >
