Hi,
Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) until the MPL issue can be resolved / explained,
other issues can be fixed next release. For the MPL issue it may be that "For
small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime
in source form” may apply. [2]
For the source release I checked:
- filename contains incubating
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE has minor issues + MPL issue [2]
- NOTICE good
- Some unexpected binaries in source (see below)
- All source file have headers
- Can compile form source?
LiCENSE is missing:
- MIT licensed normalize.css (see
./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/public/css/blurconsole.css
+
./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/bootstrap/less/normalize.less)
- MIT/BSD licensed polyfill (see ./docs/resources/js/respond.min.js)
There is an issue with
./blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/tagmanager/tagmanager.js as this is MPL
licensed [2] which is weak copy left and considered a category B license. In
this case it looks like it isn’t been handled correctly as it being included in
source not binary form. I’m not sure how this should be handled given there is
no compiled JS form.
There are a couple of test files that contain compiled code, can this be
produced via the build process?
./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test1/test1.jar
./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test2/test2.jar
Something a little odd that caught my eye is all of the
./distribution/src/main/resources-hadoop1/notices/*.jar.src files. Is there any
reason for these files to be in the source release? It look that they are used
to generate the binary NOTICE file?
For the binary release you may want to check the LICENSE as it is identical to
the source release [3]. For the binary NOTICE file a minor issue in that there
is no need to repeat "This product includes software developed by The Apache
Software Foundation “ [4].
Re compiling from source some instructions in the README would be helpful as it
seems a mvn install in the top directory may not do what is expected. (As far
as I can see it seems to be doing a rat check and nothing else?)
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
2. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
4. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundle-asf-product
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
