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
- 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 

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.


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

Reply via email to