Hi, Sorry but -1 binding for me due to LICENSE issues but happy to discuss and change my vote depending on what other IPMC members think.
Putting “wherever applicable” is probably not enough to compile with the terms of 3rd party licenses or ASF policy. Most licenses say the full text of the license needs to be included in order to comply with the terms of the license and that normally includes a copyright line. Usually files have the license text as the header so this is probably OK from a licensing point of view but I can see a number of cases here where they don’t. There are also several types of BSD license included not just the 2 clause BSD license listed in license. I checked: - incubating in name - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE has issues - NOTICE has wrong year - source files are missing license headers - no unexpected binary files - can compile from source For license all the 3rd party pieces need to be listed in LICENSE. [1] There is also software under other licenses i.e. (zlib) that are are not mentioned in license. I’m still confused how some files are licensed as they are missing headers (about 600 files) and this make the release hard to review. i.e. How do you tell if someone forget to put an ASF header on a file or is it a 3rd party file and if so how is it licensed? Also two minor things I noticed with the vote thread: a) several people said they tested the release from what was on GitHub, the one in dist.apache.org would be the one tested. b) Votes are pen for a minimum pf 72 hours not exactly 72 hours. Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps 2. https://github.com/apache/mynewt-core/blob/master/LICENSE --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
