Hi, > I'd actually prefer to retry the release Cool, we can do that.
The simplest way is to also include OAK-82 (this morning's commit) so we have a clean trunk for 0.2.1. What should the release notes say about the licencing issue? alex On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Michael Dürig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 3.5.12 9:08, Alex Parvulescu wrote: > >> So we can consider the vote has failed due to the licencing issue. >> > > Yes. > > > > >> I see that we already have one commit on the trunk, so in order to >> minimize >> the noise maybe cutting 0.3 at the end of may is a better option? >> > > If it is only about the noise I don't mind. I'd actually prefer to retry > the release. This will get us going with the process and help us sorting > out potential issues with it. If it is a matter of resources and time, I'm > fine with skipping it. > > Michael > > > > >> alex >> >> >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Mueller<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> The troublesome files come with the following header: >>>> >>>> /* >>>> * Copyright 2004-2011 H2 Group. Multiple-Licensed under the H2 License, >>>> * Version 1.0, and under the Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0 >>>> * >>>> (http://h2database.com/html/**license.html<http://h2database.com/html/license.html> >>>> ). >>>> * Initial Developer: H2 Group >>>> */ >>>> >>>> I suppose they may well have originally written by Thomas and that he >>>> could simply relicense them to the ASF, but until then we should treat >>>> them as EPLv1 code and mention that in the LICENSE.txt file. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, that was a mistake. I wrote those two classes originally, so I can >>> relicense them. I have done that in revision 1333334. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Thomas >>> >>> >>> >>
