Cliff, any updates on the new RC3 ?
Rajith On 11/27/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/25/06, Marnie McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cliff, > > Just to check on the license issue for Apache products - when you say we > must include a license, do you mean copy the apache license beside the jar ? > > (Just asking as I'd followed the pattern in other project's release dists > and only seen one Apache license includes even if several products.) yeah...there's no one solid rule on this. However, to me it makes sense that you would want to place a copy of the applicable license(s) in each lib/ subdirectory along side the associated product, *whether the product come from the ASF or not*. In fact, if it comes from the ASF, it might have multiple licenses associated with it, just like Qpid -- so they should all be there. While one could try to argue that unless it says otherwise every directory is under the Apache License; however, I think that gets tricky with ASF and non-ASF included products, each with one or more licenses. Cliff > On 11/24/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 11/24/06, Rajith Attapattu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > Did anybody find any issues with the RC2 ? > > > > > > Folks please double check and let us know so that we can move towards > > the > > > final release ? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rajith > > > > > > > > > On 11/22/06, Rajith Attapattu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > > > The RC2 is available for download, please give it spin and let us > > know. > > > > http://people.apache.org/~rajith/qpid-release/RC2/ > > > > > > > > This includes > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > modified amqp license > > > > roberts qpid script fix to allow arguments to be passed through to the > > > qpid process > > > > martins fixes to build scripts > > > > Here are the issues that I think MUST be fixed before a release: > > > > 1. We need to either include MINA source code or have note in the > > directory or a rev# in the file name that gives user ability to get > > source. At the moment, I don't think it's obvious (or even possible?) > > for a user to get the source associated with the included binary, and > > this is a big problem. Should be a simple fix but must be done. From > > Leo's email: > > > > (4) failing that, custom builds of all dependencies > > SHOULD be clearly identified as such and traceable > > to their exact origin, eg > > > > qpid-1.1.4-incubating.zip > > lib/ > > mina-r2475690.qpid-1.1.4-incubating.jar > > > > You may have thought this wasn't necessary because you had a > > "project-sanctioned snapshot" (from Leo's (3)), but the idea there was > > that there was something that the project has released with associated > > source to go with the binary. > > > > 2. Every third-party component (including the ones that happen to come > > from another ASF project) must include a license. For instance, I'm > > not seeing any license anywhere in the logging-log4j component (not > > even buried in the .jar). > > > > Here are the issues that would be nice to fix in either this release > > or the next: > > > > 1. I'm still seeing the duplicate LICENSE file in the /java dir of > > qpid-java-1.0-incubator-M1-RC2-src.tar.gz that does not include the > > same list of third-party licenses as the one at the root does. Not > > sure why this duplicate LICENSE/NOTICE/README is even here. > > > > 2. It would be nice if the licenses mentioned in #2 of the MUST-fix > > section above were in a top level directory of each component of lib/ > > dir, rather than inside a .jar that doesn't need to be unzipped to be > > used. We have no official policy on this at the moment, but I think > > we should generally make it easy for someone to glance at a component > > in /lib and easily see how it is licensed. > > > > 3. The top-level LICENSE file now meets the release requirements, but > > it might be nice to name the license that is referenced in each line > > at the bottom of the file (e.g. "MPL v1.1: > > java/common/lib/saxon/license.saxon.txt" or > > "java/common/lib/saxon/license.saxon.txt (MPL v1.1)" ) > > > > I will +1 a vote on a release that fixes the two MUST-fix issues; it's > > up to you all whether you want to make it a little nicer by adding any > > of the 1-3 nice-to-have items above. > > > > Cliff > > > >
