Hi,
This is what I would do:
a) Use the version with the new header. [1]
b) Add nothing to NOTICE as it ALv2 license but the 3rd party project has no
NOTICE file.
c) Add if you want a few lines to LICENSE saying the file is ALv2 licensed and
mention the owner.
It’s unfortunate that the
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:38:16 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: the case of the maven wrapper
For anyone who is interested from the Gradle side of things, you can look
at what we do for the Groovy project. We do include the (Gradle) wrapper
files in our git repo but NOT in our
For anyone who is interested from the Gradle side of things, you can look
at what we do for the Groovy project. We do include the (Gradle) wrapper
files in our git repo but NOT in our source distribution zip. There is one
extra step in our build process/line in our README that explains how to
The request to donate the wrapper was closed won't fix (they did
adjust the license headers)
I've made a comment on a 3+ year old issue on maven itself, which had
excluded the wrapper due to perceived problems in performing change
inside the ASF
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:05 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> One of the tings I've noticed is that the vetos on a podling's first
> release can be a bit harsh.
>
> On releases I would rather see such vetos replaced with comments that are
> feedback, while still obvious that they are an issue that
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:22 AM Ignasi Barrera wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 09:15, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>
> > In the particular case of the "MavenWrapperDownloader.java" file, I would
> > say it is OK not to mention it in the LICENSE/NOTICE files, as per the
> > existing policy [1]. The
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 09:15, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
> In the particular case of the "MavenWrapperDownloader.java" file, I would
> say it is OK not to mention it in the LICENSE/NOTICE files, as per the
> existing policy [1]. The project does not contain a NOTICE file, so there
> is nothing to
FYI I've asked takari to donate the wrapper to the ASF. It is
important but tiny
https://github.com/takari/takari-maven-plugin/issues/18
Meanwhile, we will remove the wrapper from the source distribution as
putting it in the NOTICE file is something off-putting to a few of our
contributors. We
In the particular case of the "MavenWrapperDownloader.java" file, I would
say it is OK not to mention it in the LICENSE/NOTICE files, as per the
existing policy [1]. The project does not contain a NOTICE file, so there
is nothing to propagate there, and policy says that if the bundled
dependency
Hi,
> If we all say fine.. let's just throw more paperwork at it, I would ask you
> to help draft a line for the NOTICE of what we would do. suppose we would
> also have to do this for gradle etc.
You would need to do this for any 3rd party file bundled with a release and yes
sometimes this is
> But in the end ... if we actually do include code by takari isn't if fair
> to mention it?
>
this is where I am trying to get at actually. is it an intention to change
the NOTICE files
After all it's not just the Java code the wrapper scripts themselves should
> count too.
> And in the end it's
Yeah well ...
But in the end ... if we actually do include code by takari isn't if fair to
mention it?
After all it's not just the Java code the wrapper scripts themselves should
count too.
And in the end it's a one-time addition that will stick there for the rest of
time.
So give it 5 minutes
Hi,
> And exactly that file in the Edgent and PLC4X project are copies of my
> original code (My PR wasn't accepted till then)
> So IANAL, but if you copy the file from one of those, it should be ok ...
> correct?
It OK from either source as it’s ALv2 licensed but id it was from the 3rd party
> Does it help, that I wrote that file and submitted it in a pull request to
> eliminate the binary jar needed prior to my change? ... Guess that's also
> an additional reason why there's an Apache header on it :-)
imho it helps in so far as the work itself (thanks!) and also a subject
matter
roid<https://aka.ms/ghei36> herunterladen
From: Mick Semb Wever
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 7:05:02 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: the case of the maven wrapper
> As binaries are not allowed in sour
> > One of the tings I've noticed is that the vetos on a podling's first
> > release can be a bit harsh.
>
> A -1 on a release is not a veto. A release can still pass if it gets 3
> +1 votes. However in this case because of the jar in a source release
> it’s unlikely IMO to get 3 +1 IPMC
Hi,
> Takari is an Apache licensed codebase. My understanding is that there is a
> requirement to include it in the NOTICE.txt file.
You may wish to note that in LICENSE [1] But content will only go in NOTICE if
it has it has it’s own NOTICE file. [1]
> Furthermore, Takari contains no
Please see my response in the other thread. I didn’t see this rethreading.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 9:29 PM, Adrian Cole wrote:
>
> To help others participate, here is the original thread:
>
rladen
From: Mick Semb Wever
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 7:05:02 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: the case of the maven wrapper
> As binaries are not allowed in source repos, the maven wrapper
> introduces a small java source file which bootstraps the tool. This
> As binaries are not allowed in source repos, the maven wrapper
> introduces a small java source file which bootstraps the tool. This
> has Apache license headers on it.
Takari is an Apache licensed codebase.
My understanding is that there is a requirement to include it in the NOTICE.txt
To help others participate, here is the original thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8e9b5ec9b8fcc14427bee4dc64f4db7692b787e6349ed348b983d914@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
Here is the part about the file in question:
> Should this file have an ASF header? [2] Where did it originally
Hi,
> As a part of Zipkin's first attempt to vote a release on the general
> list, Justin lightly dinged the maven wrapper file, asking for it to
> be in the NOTICE box.
I didn’t ask that all I asked was where the file was from. In general very list
needs to go in NOTICE, this included:
a)
I suspect this has gone around in some incarnations, but I wanted to
bring the topic to the front.
One of the main problems solved in Gradle was environment consistency
through "wrapper scripts". Wrappers lock the version of the tool and
incidental dependencies in order to stabilize the build.
23 matches
Mail list logo
