[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Rya (Incubating) version 3.2.10 RC1 Failed

Hello, The vote to release Rya (Incubating) version 3.2.10 RC1 has failed. The results are as follows: -1 (binding): Josh Elser, Adina Crainiceanu -1 (non binding): David Lotts, Caleb Meier Below is the list of JIRA tasks blocking successful release. These tasks should address the concerns

Re: RYA-179 Review License / Copyright notices on Rya Artifacts

Yeah, this is where I'm not 100% sure how to interpret this. I'm not sure if "optional" is interpreted as "there are other ways to do X" or if it's "X is not a core-feature of Rya". @Sean, do you know how this is supposed to be interpreted? Puja Valiyil wrote: I guess my point is that the

Re: RYA-179 Review License / Copyright notices on Rya Artifacts

Here the method I used to find the licenses for dependencies, and below is reprint of the results with better wrapping: I used the license-maven-plugin[1] It does not require changes to the pom.xml. I just ran this command in the root. mvn license:aggregate-add-third-party It generated a

Re: RYA-179 Review License / Copyright notices on Rya Artifacts

Hi David, Ayup. As I mentioned in another part of the thread, we had to exclude and work around category-X transitive dependencies. Eclipse and Apache both agree on many of the no-go licenses and only-if you must ones. Since you mentioned JAI, I'd note that there is a project called Raster

Re: RYA-179 Review License / Copyright notices on Rya Artifacts

Hi all, The two projects are very similar. I'd note that GeoMesa has an Apache 2 license as well [1], so that wouldn't be the main issue. Since this is a licensing issue, I'd point out that GeoMesa has been completely vetted through Eclipse's IP / license review process. GeoWave hasn't

Re: RYA-179 Review License / Copyright notices on Rya Artifacts

Geowave includes geotools [1] [1] https://github.com/ngageoint/geowave/blob/master/pom.xml#L208 On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:59 AM Puja Valiyil wrote: > I guess my point is that the average user doesn't want these capabilities. > We removed the profile to make build process

Re: RYA-179 Review License / Copyright notices on Rya Artifacts

I guess my point is that the average user doesn't want these capabilities. We removed the profile to make build process easier, but the main reason we had it to begin with was because they are optional extensions that can complicate licensing and add a lot of unwanted dependencies. The other