Why do we feel the need to edit the AMQ distribution rather than include it and its Notice and License information in its entirety? If we think a lighter weight AMQ distribution is desirable, any chance of get the AMQ folks to provide such instead of us hacking?
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Marshall. The NOTICE/LICENSE files should reflect what > is actually inside a JAR/ZIP and non-applicable parts should - if feasible > - > be removed. > > That said, the LICENSE/NOTICE files e.g. from the Spring distribution are > also > usually shooting beyond the goal and make references to third-party code > that > may or may not be in a particular artifact... and all artifacts contain the > same notices/licenses. > > In the case of Spring, I find it not particularly practicable to figure out > what is relevant and what not. > > But here, specific parts seem to be clearly assignable to specific > non-packaged JARs, > so it appears to be practicable to be more accurate. > > -- Richard > > > On 26.04.2016, at 23:03, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Here's a summary (please correct if wrong): > > > > There are two "optional" JARs not distributed with UIMA-AS have license > and > > (partial) notice info in the uima-as LICENSE/NOTICE files. > > > > One of the value propositions that lets others make use of our > technology is the > > reputation we maintain about our always somewhat imperfect attempts at > having > > accurate license and notice files. I would prefer that we strive to > keep our > > reputation where it is by removing the license and partial notice for > these > > JARs, and perhaps adding some documentation (if needed) specifying what > JARs can > > be optionally downloaded (from ActiveMQ distribution) for providing > additional > > functionality, not provided out of the box by the UIMA-AS binary > distribution. > > > > Having said that, if the others on the PMC feel that this flaw (having > extra > > licenses and extra (partial) notices not needed is OK for releasing, I > won't > > stand in the way. > > > > I'll do a bit more testing, and then if nothing more is found, vote -0 to > > indicate this. > > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > -Marshall > > > > > > On 4/26/2016 11:05 AM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote: > >> Thanks Marshall. Just to provide more context for the problems found > >> > >> The JmDNS seems to be part of auto discovery of network of brokers via > >> unicast instead of hard coded URLs. This is not part of standard > uima-as > >> configuration we distribute. When such functionality is needed users may > >> download their own copy of AMQ and use that. Of course there is an > issue of > >> having this jar documented in LICENSE and NOTICE but not present in the > >> distribution. > >> > >> The second one jasypt is providing encryption and decryption of user > >> credentials per: http://activemq.apache.org/encrypted-passwords.html. I > >> think the lack of this jar can also be dealt with the same way as above. > >> > >> Given the above I will await your vote. One way or the other I need your > >> vote to proceed. Seems like quality of the distribution mandates RC3 > vote > >> down. > >> > >> Jerry > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Although others may be voting +1 to release, just to be clear, I'm > >>> currently -1 > >>> until the license / notice issues mentioned above are resolved. > >>> > >>> -Marshall > >
