I'll check it out..apologies! On 2/11/14, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gentle reminder: we need one more PMC vote to be able to release. > > On Tuesday, February 11, 2014, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think Rat is wrong on the jquery license. >> >> They have included a header, but its not identified by rat. >> MIT is a clear "yes" for me. We have several other portions of MIT code >> inside AL code (i.e. commons compress if i recall correctly). >> >> If we want to put it into the NOTICE file we need to make sure to add >> bootstrap.min.js >> and prettify.min.js as well (both AL 2.0) >> >> I would not use a CDN because people might download it for a reason - >> maybe they >> have no real connection where they want to work with it. >> >> >> >> On 11 Feb 2014, at 3:20, Gary Gregory wrote: >> >> This should be documented clearly in our build (in this case, in the >> POM). >>> >>> Is the JQuery license compatible with ours? >>> >>> If you read https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a as a >>> "yes" then the files RAT complains about can be excluded from the >>> report. >>> If you read it as a "no", then we cannot include JQuery. >>> >>> It reads like a "yes" to me. >>> >>> The next question is: Do we need to add JQuery to our NOTICE file? >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Nick. >>>> Didn't we discuss this before, for the beta-9 release (and came to the >>>> same conclusion)? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014, Nick Williams < >>>> nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what our policy is, either, but there's nothing we can do >>>>> about it. We can't modify the license header of those files--that >>>>> would >>>>> be >>>>> in violation of the license under which JQuery is made available. And >>>>> ceasing to use JQuery would make the site not very good anymore. >>>>> >>>>> Either way, since this is JS for the site and not source code for >>>>> Log4j, >>>>> and since those files have been there for a very long time, I >>>>> certainly >>>>> don't think it should hold up this release. >>>>> >>>>> Nick >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: >>>>> >>>>> RAT complains: >>>>> >>>>> ******************************* >>>>> >>>>> Unapproved licenses: >>>>> >>>>> src/site/resources/js/jquery.js >>>>> src/site/resources/js/jquery.min.js >>>>> >>>>> ******************************* >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure what our policy is for this kind of issue. >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Nick Williams < >>>>> nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Nick Williams wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> *This is a vote to release Log4j 2.0-rc1, the twelfth release of >>>>>> Log4j >>>>>> 2.0.* >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip /> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Please test and cast your votes.* >>>>>> [x] +1, release the artifacts >>>>>> >>>>>> [ ] -1, don't release because... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nick >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >> >> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
