We are correcting our LICENSE bundling to mirror what you've sent. Now, on NOTICE file, we are going by the statement at http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
>However, elements such as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD and MIT licenses need not be duplicated in NOTICE On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Hitesh Shah <hit...@apache.org> wrote: > Another useful doc which was being worked on as part of Kudu going through > the same pains of its first release: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eftfjrWpOG-dRkw9dZWRfcj3p_qCeE5xC-G0Y5j29Ck/edit > > — Hitesh > > On Apr 8, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Gino Bustelo <g...@bustelos.com> wrote: > > > I'm reading > https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/blob/master/COPYING.LESSER#L91 and > > seems to me that we need to ship our bin distros with copies of the LGPL > > license. What is you all read? > > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Gino Bustelo <lbust...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> @hitesh > >> > >> Awesome summary. This helps a ton. It confirms what we about to do with > >> License/Notices files. > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Gino B. > >> > >>> On Apr 6, 2016, at 6:07 PM, Hitesh Shah <hit...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Will take a look. > >>> > >>> Some general comments in the meantime: > >>> - version should have incubating. tar balls should be versioned and > >> have incubating as part of their names ( this seems to be getting > addressed > >> in the pull request ) > >>> - the main LICENSE and NOTICE are for a source release. This means if > >> there are any files part of the source release ( javascript, fonts, etc > ) > >> which are checked in as part of the codebase that have a different > license > >> should be checked to see if any updates are needed to the main LICENSE > and > >> NOTICE files. > >>> - Based on the thread ( > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201602.mbox/%3C5F118AA0-4ADA-403B-A6EB-4A85F0B30651%40me.com%3E > >> ), this will be the only one release allowed with the LGPL dependency. > In > >> addition, based on the thread, a sentence added to the DISCLAIMER that > >> Toree depends on X which is licensed using Y and does not conform to > Apache > >> License v2 would be needed. See Bertrand’s reply to the thread. > >>> - jars should have a LICENSE and NOTICE ( seems like this is being > >> addressed in the pull request too ) > >>> - If there is a plan to publish binary-release.tar.gz and the other > >> tarball as convenience artifacts as part of the release, they will need > >> their own LICENSE and NOTICE files depending on what each of them are > >> bundling. This is usually where most podlings trip up. > >>> > >>> thanks > >>> — Hitesh > >>> > >>>> On Apr 5, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Gino Bustelo <g...@bustelos.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks Hitesh... would you be available to take a look at all we are > >>>> covering in the PR #13 < > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-toree/pull/13>. > >>>> Would be great to get an idea if we are going in the right direction > >>>> regarding LICENSE/NOTICE files and what is needed extra due to LGPL > >>>> dependency. > >>>> > >>>> I think once we got signing done... all the pieces are in place to > >> create > >>>> all the assets that will be released. > >>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Hitesh Shah <hit...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> For snapshot versions, I believe build tools are allowed to publish > to > >> the > >>>>> snapshot repo as needed. jenkins builds already support this and I am > >>>>> guessing travis should have similar provisions. > >>>>> > >>>>> For releases ( with a disclaimer as binary artifacts are not > considered > >>>>> part of an official release), the binary convenience artifacts would > be > >>>>> publish via dist.apache.org. The general approach is to publish an > RC > >> to > >>>>> dist.apache/dev , get it voted upon by the community/PPMC ( followed > >> by an > >>>>> IPMC vote on general@incubator ) and then move to /release after the > >> vote > >>>>> is successful. As part of the RC creation, the release manager would > >> do an > >>>>> appropriate mvn deploy ( this will go into a staging repo ) and also > >> push > >>>>> the bits to dist.apache.org - both of which need to be signed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Will need to check more on travis and whether a tool can publish bits > >> as > >>>>> all releases are meant to be signed by someone from the PPMC and > using > >> a > >>>>> tool would imply providing your secret keys to the tool. > >>>>> > >>>>> — Hitesh > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Apr 5, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Gino Bustelo <g...@bustelos.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We are getting close to completing work to our build scripts (PR #13 > >>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-toree/pull/13>) to make the > >> project > >>>>>> follow the Apache release criteria that we've been able to find > >> through > >>>>>> search. Mainly auditing license headers, POM content, jar generation > >> with > >>>>>> NOTICE/LICENSE files, etc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> At this point we need someone with experience that can verify all > the > >>>>> steps > >>>>>> we've done. Also, it is not clear to me what the process is to > getting > >>>>> all > >>>>>> the assets published for a release vote. Several question are: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. Can publishing of assets be automated using Travis? Including > maven > >>>>>> publish, and binary package distribution. > >>>>>> 2. Where do we publish binary packages? Not talking about JARs, > >> rather a > >>>>>> package with libraries and scripts to start/run Toree. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Any help is appreciated... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Gino > >>> > >> > >
