On 07/11/16 00:05, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
I'm afraid my vote is:
-1 (non-binding)
because of broken initializers and confusing LICENSE in source archive.
- repository JARs/POMs; broken initializers?
IMO A single problem is not grounds for redoing a release. Just look at
JIRA.
What is more, 3.1.1 has been signalled for over 2 months. If you could
test against development snapshots much earlier in the cycle that would
be helpful and then raise issues before the RM invests time in the
release process.
Another thing, LICENSE file of jena-3.1.1-source-release.zip says
The following files contain code contributed by Plugged In Software:
src/main/java/org/apache/jena/rdf/arp/ExtendedHandler.java
src/main/java/org/apache/jena/rdf/arp/impl/XMLHandler.java
src/main/java/org/apache/jena/rdf/arp/ARP.java
but the correct file paths are presumably these under jena-core/ and
in different packages:
jena-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jena/rdfxml/xmlinput/ExtendedHandler.java
jena-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jena/rdfxml/xmlinput/impl/XMLHandler.java
jena-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jena/rdfxml/xmlinput/ARP.java
I wonder why these files have BOTH the Apache license and BSD
license..
It is a combination of a contribution (BSD) and later work (AL).
Back when it was contributed, licensing issues were not so clearly
expressed (anywhere, not just Jena).
We could not ask Plugged In Software for a Software Grant (the company
did not exist).
Related in NOTICE:
Apache Jena
Copyright 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 The Apache Software Foundation
That can be changed.
..
- Copyright 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP
Not ours to change.
I guess no need to list all the years, 2011-2016 and 2001-2009 would suffice.
There are, or at least were, differences of opinion in legal circles
about that.
I would have called this version 3.2.0 instead - I remember several
times when a "patch" update of Jena has lots of big changes in other
code; I guess after 6 months of hard work we can't aim for patch
compatibility anymore so it's just fair to go for 3.2.0 even if
there's nothing new politically.
See discussion about a 3 month release cycle.
Andy
