Hi, I cancel this vote and start a new one for the second release candidate.
Kind regards, Michael On 16.09.2014, at 10:48, Bolz, Michael <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > I checked the dependencies of: > http://people.apache.org/~mibo/olingo4/4.0.0-beta-01-RC01/Olingo-OData-Clie > nt-for-Android-4.0.0-beta-01-RC01-lib.zip > http://people.apache.org/~mibo/olingo4/4.0.0-beta-01-RC01/Olingo-OData-Clie > nt-for-Java-4.0.0-beta-01-RC01-lib.zip > http://people.apache.org/~mibo/olingo4/4.0.0-beta-01-RC01/Olingo-OData-Serv > er-for-Java-4.0.0-beta-01-RC01-lib.zip > > > Were we have following licenses: > # Apache License Version 2.0 > # The BSD License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php) > # The MIT License: MIT License > (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) > # The CDDL License: COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL) > Version 1.0 (http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html) > # The License: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (BSD-3-Clause) > (http://treelayout.googlecode.com/files/LICENSE.TXT) > # The License: The BSD License (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) > > > > For all none Apache licenses it is allowed to redistribute the binary if > the original license/notice it provided within the re-distribution. > Which should be fulfilled by adding them into the LICENSE file of our > distribution zip file (IMHO). > > But such license and legal questions are really tricky. > So I'am glad of any clarification and support about this to do it right > and at the end to provide a valid Rcxx/Final Release. > > Kind regards, > Michael > > On 16.09.14 08:43, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 16/09/2014 06:23, Bolz, Michael wrote: >>> Hi together, >>> >>> For the release of "Apache Olingo OData 4.0.0-beta-01" Java library >>> parts >>> the current voting state is as follows: >>> >>> 2x +1 (sklevenz, mibo) >>> 0x -1 >>> >>> And a discussion about NOTICE and LICENSE file updates for "slf4j" >>> dependency. >> >> For the sake of clarity: it not just about SLF4J, it's about reviewing >> any non-ALv2 dependency to check if notice is required and, if so, to >> add it to the relevant NOTICE file(s). >> >>> It would be nice to get more votes, discussions or opinions so we can >>> step >>> forward to a release or second release candidate. >>> So please share your vote or opinion ;o) >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Michael >>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
