Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
I read through the stuff on the 3party.html page you referenced and I think if this does become the case there is an easy way we can handle it. While it may be a little inconvenient we can remove these files and refer to them in locations publicly available via the internet. This way we can refer to them, but not include them. Would that solve the problem? probably IMHO it's worth considering creating clean room implementations in the medium term (or lobbying for an open source compatible license) Prior to running off and rewriting the wheel, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask upstream if they'd care to relicense the DTD under something very clear (BSD, for instance). Sometimes this works, and sometimes these sorts of negotiations are aided by having an apache.org address. It's usually worth a try. mentors really need to cast their votes +1 -- David N. Welton - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Linux, Open Source Consulting - http://www.dedasys.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
On Nov 7, 2006, at 12:40 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 11/7/06, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 5, 2006, at 3:52 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 11/2/06, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I read through the stuff on the 3party.html page you referenced and I think if this does become the case there is an easy way we can handle it. While it may be a little inconvenient we can remove these files and refer to them in locations publicly available via the internet. This way we can refer to them, but not include them. Would that solve the problem? probably IMHO it's worth considering creating clean room implementations in the medium term (or lobbying for an open source compatible license) ofbiz.jar does not contain LICENSE and NOTICE in it's META-INF. so this jar cannot be distributed as a bare artifact. for example, this means that it cannot be distributed through the maven repository. do you intend to ban distribution by maven? I'm not sure what this would/should look like, and honestly hadn't considered the distribution of these jars through a Maven repository/ server. The ofbiz.jar isn't really of any use on its own and is just an executable place holder that loads other stuff in OFBiz. For distribution in Maven would every jar in OFBiz have to include the NOTICE and LICENSE files? We could certainly do this by just changing the ant scripts. yes - every apache jar that is released by itself would need NOTICE and LICENSE files Thanks for the feedback. The OFBiz build files now all copy the NOTICE and LICENSE files into the META-INF directory for each jar. So, from now on all OFBiz jar files will include the NOTICE and LICENSE files to make their (re)distribution more flexible. On a side note, is this getting in the way of the voting process for this Test Snapshot release? possibly AFAIC the substantive issue is the xsd's without open source licenses but IMHO this is a marginal case. the license is missing from the LICENSE file. apache has traditionally issued aggregate binary releases containing redistributable binary components which are not open source but does not include source under restrictive licenses. xsd's are a difficult corner case. much better to create clean room implementations. since this is an incubator release and there seems no substantial legal risk i'm going to +1 but i trust that the mentors will see that this issue is resolved before graduation. In the case of all of these DTD/XSD files they are not frequently used in OFBiz and after a bit of research I was able to get all existing XML files pointing to files available over the internet instead of from/though OFBiz. I don't think this will become much of an issue in terms of inconvenience or making things inflexible, and in a way it is nice to have one less thing to keep track of in the resources we manage and host. So yes, these files are now removed from SVN and there are README files in place to describe where the files can be obtained, and the XML files that use them point to the public locations. I've notice that no one else has really voted on it yet. that's not unusual. unfortunately, checking releases takes IPMC energy which is in limited supply. i run RAT (which is quicker) but there's still quite a deal of time talen by offering explanations. From my own experience I totally understand and there is certainly no hurry on this. We'd all like to see this finished up of course and will be happy to do whatever we can to smooth out the process. I know that OFBiz is fairly large will require a good bit of time from anyone who reviews it. I think this wraps up these new issues that Robert identified so that once this or another Test Snapshot is approved we won't have these delaying the OFBiz graduation. -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
On 11/7/06, Yoav Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/7/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip AFAIC the substantive issue is the xsd's without open source licenses but IMHO this is a marginal case. the license is missing from the LICENSE file. apache has traditionally issued aggregate binary releases containing redistributable binary components which are not open source but does not include source under restrictive licenses. xsd's are a difficult corner case. much better to create clean room implementations. So would you recommend OFBiz copy the XSD and relicense it to ASL 2.0? definitely not: this is very wrong. in particular: * there is no right to modify so adding a license header would be a copyright violation * existing copyright and license headers must be retained a clean room implementation would mean starting from the specification without reference t o the DTD ideally by people who had no knowledge of the DTD but see comments by david and david later in this thread. i'm happy that this is know resolved and hope that OfBiz may contact the consortium and ask about offering under a different license in future. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
Hi Robert, robert burrell donkin wrote: ... but see comments by david and david later in this thread. i'm happy that this is know resolved and hope that OfBiz may contact the consortium and ask about offering under a different license in future. Yes, this is something we will probably try to do in the future, even if it's not one of the top level priorities right now since the OFBiz's components that are using these files are by default not enabled (and they require some setup before they can really be used) and so using publicly available urls is fine for now. Our top priority right now is to clear all the license issues, answer your questions, address your remarks so that we can graduate. Again, thanks for your valuable feedback and comments. Jacopo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ActiveMQ 4.0.2 (RC 6)
I'll take a look Hiram...I'm not an Incubator PMC member but I'll provide my input. On Nov 8, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: Unless I'm lossing email... I think we still need a few more votes from incubator pmc members to make this release official. Anybody around that can help check this release?? On 10/29/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some last minute NOTICE issues were still present in the 5th release candidate of the 4.0.2 build. We have also received confirmation from Apache legal discuss that it's ok to include work covered by the Creative Commons Attribution license. I have cut and RC 6 of the 4.0.2 build with the fixes and it's available here: http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.2-RC6/ maven1/incubator-activemq/distributions/ Maven 1 and Maven 2 repos for this release can be found at: http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.2-RC6 Here's the wiki page for the release notes: http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/activemq-402-release.html Please vote to approve this release binary [ ] +1 Release the binary as Apache ActiveMQ 4.0.2 [ ] -1 Veto the release (provide specific comments) This vote is being cross posted to the general incubator mailing list also to expedite the voting process. Here's my +1 -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ActiveMQ 4.0.2 (RC 6)
Unless I'm lossing email... I think we still need a few more votes from incubator pmc members to make this release official. Anybody around that can help check this release?? On 10/29/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some last minute NOTICE issues were still present in the 5th release candidate of the 4.0.2 build. We have also received confirmation from Apache legal discuss that it's ok to include work covered by the Creative Commons Attribution license. I have cut and RC 6 of the 4.0.2 build with the fixes and it's available here: http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.2-RC6/maven1/incubator-activemq/distributions/ Maven 1 and Maven 2 repos for this release can be found at: http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.2-RC6 Here's the wiki page for the release notes: http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/activemq-402-release.html Please vote to approve this release binary [ ] +1 Release the binary as Apache ActiveMQ 4.0.2 [ ] -1 Veto the release (provide specific comments) This vote is being cross posted to the general incubator mailing list also to expedite the voting process. Here's my +1 -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ActiveMQ 4.0.2 (RC 6)
Hiram, I pulled the versions from your personal site and looked at the tar.gz files. The server started fine and from a user perspective it looks great. The LICENSE information seems to be correct. The only nit is that the NOTICE file does not have a .txt on the end like the other files. I'd vote +1. Looks good. Matt On Nov 8, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: Unless I'm lossing email... I think we still need a few more votes from incubator pmc members to make this release official. Anybody around that can help check this release?? On 10/29/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some last minute NOTICE issues were still present in the 5th release candidate of the 4.0.2 build. We have also received confirmation from Apache legal discuss that it's ok to include work covered by the Creative Commons Attribution license. I have cut and RC 6 of the 4.0.2 build with the fixes and it's available here: http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.2-RC6/ maven1/incubator-activemq/distributions/ Maven 1 and Maven 2 repos for this release can be found at: http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.2-RC6 Here's the wiki page for the release notes: http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/activemq-402-release.html Please vote to approve this release binary [ ] +1 Release the binary as Apache ActiveMQ 4.0.2 [ ] -1 Veto the release (provide specific comments) This vote is being cross posted to the general incubator mailing list also to expedite the voting process. Here's my +1 -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ActiveMQ 4.0.2 (RC 6)
+1 from me. -- dims On 11/8/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiram, I pulled the versions from your personal site and looked at the tar.gz files. The server started fine and from a user perspective it looks great. The LICENSE information seems to be correct. The only nit is that the NOTICE file does not have a .txt on the end like the other files. I'd vote +1. Looks good. Matt On Nov 8, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: Unless I'm lossing email... I think we still need a few more votes from incubator pmc members to make this release official. Anybody around that can help check this release?? On 10/29/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some last minute NOTICE issues were still present in the 5th release candidate of the 4.0.2 build. We have also received confirmation from Apache legal discuss that it's ok to include work covered by the Creative Commons Attribution license. I have cut and RC 6 of the 4.0.2 build with the fixes and it's available here: http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.2-RC6/ maven1/incubator-activemq/distributions/ Maven 1 and Maven 2 repos for this release can be found at: http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.2-RC6 Here's the wiki page for the release notes: http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/activemq-402-release.html Please vote to approve this release binary [ ] +1 Release the binary as Apache ActiveMQ 4.0.2 [ ] -1 Veto the release (provide specific comments) This vote is being cross posted to the general incubator mailing list also to expedite the voting process. Here's my +1 -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[STATUS] (incubator) Wed Nov 8 23:58:30 2006
APACHE INCUBATOR PROJECT STATUS: -*-indented-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2006-02-05 04:40:19 -0500 (Sun, 05 Feb 2006) $] Web site: http://Incubator.Apache.Org/ Wiki page: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ [note: the Web site is the 'official' documentation; the wiki pages are for collaborative development, including stuff destined for the Web site.] Pending Issues == o We need to be very very clear about what it takes to be accepted into the incubator. It should be a very low bar to leap, possibly not much more than 'no problematic code' and the existence of a healthy community (we don't want to become a dumping ground). o We need to be very very clear about what it takes for a podling to graduate from the incubator. The basic requirements obviously include: has a home, either as part of another ASF project or as a new top-level project of its own; needs to be a credit to the ASF and function well in the ASF framework; ... See also: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR Resolved Issues === o The policy documentation does not need ratification of changes if there seems consensus. Accordingly, the draft status of these documents can be removed and we will use the lazy commit first, discuss later mode common across the ASF for documentation (http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]by=threadfrom=517190) o Coming up with a set of bylaws for the project (http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]by=threadfrom=517190) o All projects under incubation must maintain a status Web page that contains information the PMC needs about the project. (http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html) o Projects under incubation should display appropriate disclaimers so that it is clear that they are, indeed, under incubation (http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]by=threadfrom=504543) o Clearly and authoritatively document how to edit, generate, and update the Web site (three separate functions) (http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html). The Incubation Process == TODO: this does not belong in the STATUS file and probably was integrated into other documentation a while ago. That should be double-checked and then this section should be removed. This tries to list all the actions items that must be complete for a project before it can graduate from the incubator. It is probably incomplete. Identify the project to be incubated: -- Make sure that the requested project name does not already exist and check www.nameprotect.com to be sure that the name is not already trademarked for an existing software product. -- If request from an existing Apache project to adopt an external package, then ask the Apache project for the cvs module and mail address names. -- If request from outside Apache to enter an existing Apache project, then post a message to that project for them to decide on acceptance. -- If request from anywhere to become a stand-alone PMC, then assess the fit with the ASF, and create the lists and modules under the incubator address/module names if accepted. Interim responsibility: -- Who has been identified as the mentor for the incubation? -- Are they tracking progress on the project status Web page? Copyright: -- Have the papers that transfer rights to the ASF been received? It is only necessary to transfer rights for the package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. -- Have the files been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright? Verify distribution rights: -- For all code included with the distribution that is not under the Apache license, do we have the right to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute? -- Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or more of the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms? Establish a list of active committers: -- Are all active committers listed in the project status file? -- Do they have accounts on cvs.apache.org? -- Have they submitted a contributors agreement? Infrastructure: -- CVS modules created and committers added to avail file? -- Mailing lists set up and archived? -- Problem tracking system (Bugzilla)? -- Has the project migrated to our infrastructure? Collaborative Development: -- Have all of the active long-term volunteers been identified and acknowledged as committers on the project? -- Are there three or more independent committers? [The legal definition of independent is long and boring, but basically it means that there is no binding relationship between the individuals, such as a
