Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Hi Kevan, Thanks for the feedback! I have addressed your comment No. 1 below in rev 586078. For No.2, I added dom4j, pull-parser and jaxen in the notice.txt. I also added notice for commons-logging. I don't see a notice file for commons-el, jasper-runtime, jasper-compiler, or jasper-compiler-jdt. I only made changes in the license and notice files in the j2g\trunk\ dir. Once you approve them, I'll copy them over to various other directories. Thanks. Lin Kevan Miller wrote: On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:49 PM, Lin Sun wrote: Hi Kevan, I've marked G3309 as resolved. I documented my analysis in the latest few comments I added in the JIRA. If there is anything else that is missing from a legal point of view, please let me know. Hi Lin, That's great. Thanks for working on this. A few comments: 1. Artifacts that are AL2 licensed can still be mentioned in the license file. Although not necessary, it's good for completeness. Just say the following are licensed under ALv2: commons-logging, etc. 2. I think the NOTICE file needs a bit more attention. Even though projects are ALv2 licensed, we need to reproduce their NOTICE attributions as appropriate. Also, our notice file should mention dom4j, pull-parser, and jaxen and reproduce the copyrights that are in their licenses. The pull-parser license requires the following acknowledgement: "This product includes software developed by the Indiana University Extreme! Lab. For further information please visit http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/"; The appropriate location for this acknowledgement is the NOTICE file. I'll look a bit more... --kevan
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:49 PM, Lin Sun wrote: Hi Kevan, I've marked G3309 as resolved. I documented my analysis in the latest few comments I added in the JIRA. If there is anything else that is missing from a legal point of view, please let me know. Hi Lin, That's great. Thanks for working on this. A few comments: 1. Artifacts that are AL2 licensed can still be mentioned in the license file. Although not necessary, it's good for completeness. Just say the following are licensed under ALv2: commons-logging, etc. 2. I think the NOTICE file needs a bit more attention. Even though projects are ALv2 licensed, we need to reproduce their NOTICE attributions as appropriate. Also, our notice file should mention dom4j, pull-parser, and jaxen and reproduce the copyrights that are in their licenses. The pull-parser license requires the following acknowledgement: "This product includes software developed by the Indiana University Extreme! Lab. For further information please visit http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/"; The appropriate location for this acknowledgement is the NOTICE file. I'll look a bit more... --kevan
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Hi Kevan, I've marked G3309 as resolved. I documented my analysis in the latest few comments I added in the JIRA. If there is anything else that is missing from a legal point of view, please let me know. Thanks, Lin Kevan Miller wrote: On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote: Donald, I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off. Right. They aren't ok. And must be fixed before j2g can be released. I had problems building and haven't gotten back to it... There's a jira (GERONIMO-3309) with 2 patches that are supposed to fix. If somebody can have a look, that'd be great... --kevan
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Kevan, I'll look at it. I agree the license issues should be fixed before we release j2g 1.0. Lin Kevan Miller wrote: On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote: Donald, I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off. Right. They aren't ok. And must be fixed before j2g can be released. I had problems building and haven't gotten back to it... There's a jira (GERONIMO-3309) with 2 patches that are supposed to fix. If somebody can have a look, that'd be great... --kevan
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
It all seems pretty good to me - the only hangup being if there were still compile/version issue relating to the change to the full Eclipse 3.3 release from the RC2 that it was pulling at compile time, which has been taken care of. Other than that, I've got nothing currently. David - Chiming in with Jason on this, I am not familiar with the maven-remote-resources-plugin either. On 10/11/07, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are there are any major items that we want to get into a J2G 1.0.0 > release, or is everyone ready to create a branch and start the release > process? > > -Donald > > -- Erik B. Craig
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
David, Nevermind. It was early and I was being slow. On 10/13/07, Jason Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David, > > I'm not actually familiar with that plugin at all. Would you mind > providing a sentence or two breaking it down? > > Thanks, > > Jason Warner > > On 10/12/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote: > > > > > >> Donald, > > >> > > >> I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If > > >> we can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for > > >> releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off. > > > > > > By the way, the patches seem to be missing a number of license > > > files. Possible that some files hadn't been svn add'ed when the > > > patch was generated? > > > > I'll push the maven-remote-resources-plugin here again... > > > > thanks > > david jencks > > > > > > > > --kevan > > > > > > > >
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
David, I'm not actually familiar with that plugin at all. Would you mind providing a sentence or two breaking it down? Thanks, Jason Warner On 10/12/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > > > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote: > > > >> Donald, > >> > >> I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If > >> we can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for > >> releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off. > > > > By the way, the patches seem to be missing a number of license > > files. Possible that some files hadn't been svn add'ed when the > > patch was generated? > > I'll push the maven-remote-resources-plugin here again... > > thanks > david jencks > > > > > --kevan > > > >
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote: Donald, I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off. By the way, the patches seem to be missing a number of license files. Possible that some files hadn't been svn add'ed when the patch was generated? I'll push the maven-remote-resources-plugin here again... thanks david jencks --kevan
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote: Donald, I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off. By the way, the patches seem to be missing a number of license files. Possible that some files hadn't been svn add'ed when the patch was generated? --kevan
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote: Donald, I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off. Right. They aren't ok. And must be fixed before j2g can be released. I had problems building and haven't gotten back to it... There's a jira (GERONIMO-3309) with 2 patches that are supposed to fix. If somebody can have a look, that'd be great... --kevan
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Donald, I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off. ~ Jason Warner On 10/11/07, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are there are any major items that we want to get into a J2G 1.0.0 > release, or is everyone ready to create a branch and start the release > process? > > -Donald > >
[Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Are there are any major items that we want to get into a J2G 1.0.0 release, or is everyone ready to create a branch and start the release process? -Donald smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
