On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 1:07 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 November 2011 20:11, ant elder <antel...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Alan, >>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list; it >>>>>> was my understanding that votes take 72 hours. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the only change was in the NOTICE and DISCLAIMER files from >>>>>> previous RC, our champion (Chris C) suggested we could run a quicker lazy >>>>>> 24 hour vote. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, I'm not sure the vote can be shortened. I could be wrong. If it >>>>> can then I totally agree with the inclination to get goin' with this >>>>> release. I'm sorry it's had so many first and starts. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyway, I've found some problems in the NOTICE file in that Kafka >>>>>> uses/ship NUnit but it's not in the NOTICE file. >>>>>> >>>>>> Quoting sebb and Kafka's champion (Chris C) discussed this in the last >>>>>> vote >>>>>> - >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4) Your NOTICE file includes lot's of "This product includes X, >>>>>> developed by X.org" Your notice file should only include notices that you >>>>>> are *required* to have. Don't include acknowledgements in your notice >>>>>> file >>>>>> just for completeness. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just to be clear: why not? >>>>>> >>>>>> *>>> The NOTICE file should be as short as possible, but no shorter. >>>>>> * >>>>>> Having said that, we also don't have any jar like "NUnit" in the release >>>>>> artifacts. >>>>> >>>>> B ./bin/../clients/csharp/lib/nunit/2.5.9/nunit.framework.dll >>>>> >>>>> Reading the license >>>>> >>>>> http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=license&r=2.5.9 >>>>> >>>>> it seems to me that an acknowledgment in the product documentation is >>>>> required. Am I misreading their license? (wouldn't be the first time) >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't remember that license coming up before so the easiest way to >>>> find out is to bring it up at legal-discuss@. A similar question was >>>> raised in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59 and the >>>> conclusion there was it didn't have to be in the NOTICE. This is not >>>> exactly the same but it is similar so maybe it would be ok for this >>>> release could go ahead assuming its ok and raise a legal JIRA to >>>> confirm that for the future? >>> >>> The tgz files are the product that's being distributed. It's clear that >>> the NUnit license requires an acknowledgement somewhere in the product. >>> >> >> Earlier you said nunit was missing from the NOTICE so thats what I was >> replying about, but I think what you meant was that it was missing >> from the LICENSE too right? This does appear to ship the nunit dll and >> not mention that in the LICENSE file and that does seem like something >> that needs to be fixed. > > In which case, any unnecessary entries in the NOTICE file should be > removed at the same time please. >
Right, and this is going to require yet another respin and its already RC7 it might be worth posting back here with the SVN URLs to the LICENSE/NOTICE files after the updates are done but before the new RC has been made so we can help confirm it all looks ok. I also think you could CC the new vote thread to general@ and run the dev and incubator vote in parallel to save a bit of time. ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
