Hi sebb,
What specifically needs to be done to correct the NOTICE file?
Should the references to Nathan Marz and Yahoo! be removed?
Thanks,
Taylor
On Feb 14, 2014, at 12:44 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
If the code has not changed substantially in 2014 then the date can
stay as 2013.
On 15 February 2014 16:44, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi sebb,
What specifically needs to be done to correct the NOTICE file?
Should the references to Nathan Marz and Yahoo! be removed?
As I already wrote, this depends on the exact license(s) of the
file(s) involved.
Thanks,
With the exception of some JavaScript code [1], all source code files use the
Apache v2 license.
Prior to entering the incubator, the project used the Eclipse Public License.
In the incubator, all source files that did not have a license header already
(the JavaScript files mentioned above),
It means that unless Nathan Marz and an Yahoo! employee
added those items to the NOTICE, you can remove them. But
if they did, than either Nathan Marz or a Y! employee should
be asked to.
In terms of being a release blocker, I’d say not. If you fix
this in HEAD that should be sufficient to
+1 (binding)
On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:00, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a call for a vote to release Apache Storm (incubating) version 0.9.1.
This will be the first release of Apache Storm.
A vote was held on the developer mailing list, and passed with 9 +1 votes (6
Hi Joseph,
Thank you very much for the clarification.
After checking the history of the NOTICE file [1], it turns out that those
entries were made by Nathan and a Yahoo! employee.
(I thought I had added Nathan to the file, but after checking the history,
realized I didn’t, so there is a
I would say that is the right approach, and
that this vote should continue on.
On Feb 15, 2014, at 2:34 PM, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Joseph,
Thank you very much for the clarification.
After checking the history of the NOTICE file [1], it turns out that those
entries
+1 (binding)
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.comwrote:
I would say that is the right approach, and
that this vote should continue on.
On Feb 15, 2014, at 2:34 PM, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Joseph,
Thank you very much for the
+1
-Taylor
On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:00 AM, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a call for a vote to release Apache Storm (incubating) version 0.9.1.
This will be the first release of Apache Storm.
A vote was held on the developer mailing list, and passed with 9 +1 votes (6
+1 (binding) from me.
Sebb, can you please answer the question related to the NOTICE file. I
think while it may not be necessary to call out individual or companies
contributing large portions of the code, it should not block this release
and can be addressed later.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:49
If the code has not changed substantially in 2014 then the date can
stay as 2013.
As to the attribution, that depends on the _exact text_ of the license
provided with the files.
The license(s) should also be included in the LICENSE file.
Note that attributions in the NOTICE file must be passed
On 13 February 2014 07:00, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a call for a vote to release Apache Storm (incubating) version
0.9.1. This will be the first release of Apache Storm.
A vote was held on the developer mailing list, and passed with 9 +1 votes (6
binding, 3
Thanks for the input!
The majority of the codebase was originally developed by Nathan Marz, and it
includes significant contributions from Yahoo!.
The project was originally licensed under the Eclipse Public License, but has
not transitioned to the Apache v2 license.
If putting those
Correction: “has not transitioned to the Apache v2 license” should read “has
now transitioned to the Apache v2 license”.
On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:49 AM, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the input!
The majority of the codebase was originally developed by Nathan Marz, and it
14 matches
Mail list logo
