Re: [Result][VOTE] Graduate Apache Kylin from the Apache Incubator

HI, > I’d like to clarify one thing. I believe that the licensing issue [1] was > fixed in release 1.1-incubating. It occurred and was fixed in an older release but then occurred again in the last incubating release and hasn’t been fixed yet. The old JIRA [1] was marks as resolved without

Re: [Result][VOTE] Graduate Apache Kylin from the Apache Incubator

Hi, > The referenced font is SIL OFL 1.1 > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi=OFL > > You're not technically bundling the font, but referencing it via URL. It's > a good question for legal. The fonts are actually being bundled as well. [1] It just not obvious from their

Re: [VOTE] Apache Wave Release 0.4.0-incubating (RC10)

Hi, +1 binding. Could you please fix the LICENCE Appendix in the next release. The text should be "Copyright [] [name of copyright owner]” not "Copyright 2013 The Apache Software Foundation”. I checked: - artefact has incubating in name - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists -

Re: [VOTE] Apache Sirona 0.3-incubating

Hi, +1 (binding) but only if you raise a JIRA and fix up LICENSE and NOTICE issues for the next release. Everything here is permissive so it's more a documentation issue than an licensing error. For the next release could you mind mentioning the git/svn hash that the released code

Re: [VOTE] Accept Mynewt into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

Hi, > I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not > enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about > what expectations we're setting, etc. While I don’t know the exact answer and can;t speak for the project. I don’t see too much of an issue here

Re: [VOTE] Release Sentry incubating version 1.5.1 (rc0)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name includes incubation - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - All source files have headers - No unexpected binaries in source release - Can compile from source I did notice that you can’t compile without running tests you may

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache SAMOA 0.3.0 (incubating)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - signatures and hashes good - name contains incubating - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - all source files have headers - no unexpected binaries - Can compile from source Minor issue: - There's a few files that contain double license headers: e.g.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Usergrid 1.0.2

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in release name - DISCLAIMER exits - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary files - All source files have headers - Can compile from source Would be nice to have the LICENSE in a more standard format (mention version number of bundled software and

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Zeppelin (incubating) 0.5.5-incubating (RC3)

Hi, +1 binding For the source I checked: - release names include incubating - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - Source files have Apache headers (except two - see below) - No unexpected binary files - Can compile from source Also checked LICENSE and NOTICE in binary which are rather

Re: [VOTE] Apache Apex Malhar Release 3.2.0-incubating (RC2)

Hi, +1 (binding) Carry over vote from dev list, didi all of the usual checks. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache DataFu 1.3.0 (incubating)

Hi, +1 binding I checked - incubating in release name - signature and hashes correct - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - All source files have Apache headers - No unexpected binary files - Can compile from source In the next release you may want to consider: - placing the release

Re: [VOTE] Apache DataFu 1.3.0 (incubating)

Hi, > * LICENSE file looks OK, but I don't think other LICENSE notices > belong there. They typically belong to... NOTICE ;-) Think they are fine as is. I’ve not run into how to handle the JSON license before give it’s permissive it seems best to treat like the MIT or BSD license. [1]

Re: [VOTE] Apache DataFu 1.3.0 (incubating)

Hi, > * I don't see bootstrap (./site/source/javascripts/bootstrap.js, > ./site/source/javascripts/bootstrap.min.js) in the LICENSE file. As this versions of bootstrap is Apache licensed there is no need to add it to LICENSE. [1] As there is no NOTICE file nothing need to be added to NOTICE

Re: [VOTE] Apache Johnzon 0.9.1-incubating release

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exits - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary files - All source files have headers - Can compile from source Minor thing to consider changing is signing the release with an Apache email address. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-calcite-1.4.0-incubating

Hi, I've filed CALCITE-860 and CALCITE-861 to address the issues you identified. We'll be sure to get them addressed for the next release. Thanks for that. If you need anyone to double check the LICENSE file before you next release candidate just ask. Justin

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-calcite-1.4.0-incubating

Hi, +0 (binding) and please fix up the licensing issues for the next release. Checked: - Release file name includes incubating - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE has some issues (see below), but all licenses involved are permissive and Apache compatable. - NOTICE ok - No unexpected binary files -

Re: [VOTE] Accept HAWQ into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Calcite graduation review

Hi, Given the (minor) license issues with the last release, it might be better to make one more incubating release? Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Kylin-1.0-incubating

Hi, > Justin, would you be ok if we file JIRA tickets to keep track the next > release for both website and LICENSE issues? Yep that’s a good idea. You have the required 3 +1 votes for a release (assuming no changes their vote) so you don’t need to ask me :-) Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Kylin-1.0-incubating

Hi, Sorry but it’s -1 (binding), although you have enough +1 to go ahead and make a release. This issue that has occurred before [1] and even if the website isn’t included in the release it looks like there may be a still few issues to fix there. I checked - package contains incubating -

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.0.1-incubating Release

Hi, +1 (binding) source is OK I checked: - incubating in name - signatures good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - All source files have headers - No unexpected binaries in release - Unable to compile due to java version restrictions The connivence binaries LICENSE and NOTICE are

Re: [VOTE] Release Sentry incubating version 1.6.0 (rc0)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in release name - signatures good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - no unexpected binary files - all source files have headers - can compile from source Thanks, Justin -

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.8.0-incubating [rc2]

Hi, > Your files [2]-[5] are covered as part of distributions of packages we > already credit. You may want to double check, but these are relatively minor issues as everything is permissive here. While both data tables and data tables extensions are MIT licensed they are different products

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.8.0-incubating [rc2]

Hi, +1 binding For the source release I checked: - release files contain incubating - signatures and hashes correct - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE has some issues (see below) - NOTICE is OK - No unexpected binary files - Source files have headers (a few test resources / sample files including

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache htrace-4.0.0-incubating

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in name - signatures good - disclaimer exists - LICENSE is OK (but missing MIT license for normalize.css from ) - NOTICE has "developed by The Apache Software” when it should be "developed at The Apache Software” - All source files have headers - No

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.0.1-incubating Release

Hi, > I suppose I still could have missed something, but I thought i'd gotten the > bulk of it right - could you please > tell me what you noticed that I missed or misunderstood from your last > post? Only things in the release need to be in LICENSE or NOTICE [1]. I’d check that first.

Re: Should Apache VOTEs be in a first-come, first-serve queue?

Hi, > Implying that other people are not busy is not helpful and is simply > insulting other volunteers time. You are fortunate enough to get paid by > your employer to work pretty much full time on Tinkerpop judging by your > activity on the project. Most people here (including myself) have

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache htrace-4.0.1-incubating

Hi, >> For LICENSE: >> - Missing MIT licence normalize.css > > Hmm. This is part of bootstrap, so it should be covered by the section on > that? Bootstrap itself is a collection of differently licensed pieces of software. Normalize.css covered by it own license and has a different copyright

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache AsterixDB Hyracks 0.2.16-incubating (RC3)

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - has incubating in release name - signatures and hashes correct - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE has minor issues / missing a couple of MIT licenses (see below) - NOTICE correct - No binary files in source release - All source files have headers (although there are some

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.5-incubating

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - source release has incubating in it’s name - signatures and hashes correct - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE are good - All source code contains Apache headers - No unexpected binaries in source release I was unable to compile from source, may be this issue

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache htrace-4.0.1-incubating

Hi, +1 binding. You may want consider some changes to LICENSE / NOTICE for the next release. I checked: - file contain incubating - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE have minor issues (see below) - all source files have headers - no unexpected binary files - can compile source release For

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Open Climate Workbench 1.0.0

Hi, > OCW is no longer a podling under incubation. It has its own PMC. The > IPMC's votes are not binding on the release, I would think. Would other Apache members votes be binding or would them need to be voted into the PMC? Justin

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tempo - A proposal for an enterprise IoT platform

Hi, I can be one of the mentors if you need one. I’m involved in the IoT space so it's of interest . Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

Hi, > P.S.: If the the non-member route was how Justin came to the IPMC, then we > need to retain or replace such a route. Yep it was, but I am now a member because of that. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] Apache Wave Release 0.4.0-incubating (RC10)

Hi, Can any other IPMC member help out here? Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache DataFu 1.3.0 (incubating) release to maven

Hi, > Okay got it, thanks Marvin, I hadn't seen that. It sounds like we are okay > to release then given that the DataFu community already voted on and > approved the JARs to be released. The vote is cancelled. It may still be useful to check that the connivance binary follows Apache policy.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Myriad 0.1.0 (incubating)

Hi, >> Then I tried to run RAT which I cancelled after running for quite a time. From memory there were a coupe of large minified .js files, removing those make rat run much quicker. >>browserify\node_modules\punycode\LICENSE-GPL.txt I looked though everything I found, but that's not to

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Myriad 0.1.0 (incubating)

Hi, Also it looks like you may of run rat after building the software not before. Those file don’t exist in the source tar ball and only exist after building the software. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

Hi, > Then I'd say let it die. My only concern is that that it offers a way for > non-members an entry path to the ipmc. If we eliminate it, there should be an > alternative for new IPMC candidates to show interest and demonstrate merit. I have that concern as well, as that’s how I come to be

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - signatures and hashed good - incubating in release name - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE have minor issues (see below) - All source files have Apache headers - No unexpected binary files Don’t have an environment set up to compile. Can you please fix in the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Slider (incubating) release 0.90.2-incubating

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - signature and hashes good - incubating in name - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpended binary files (false positive on one fake tar file) - All ASF source files have Apache header - Can compile from source Year is incorrect in the NOTICE file so

Re: [VOTE] Apache Slider (incubating) release 0.90.2-incubating

Hi, > Is this something we can fix on the next release, or do we need to tank this > RC? I'm not sure how critically to apply the policy since these are generated > code. I saw these in my reviews but thought them ok. My understanding was because they are generated files they don’t need

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Atlas version 0.6-incubating

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - artefact contains “incubating” - signatures and hashes correct - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good, but license main contain too many things (see below). - no unexpected binaries in release - all source files have Apache headers - can compile from source

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Unomi 1.0.0-incubating

Hi, You might want to double check LICENSE and NOTICE files as well before calling for another vote. From a quick look I see Apache, MIT, BSD license software mentioned in the NOTICE when it should not be. Please see [1][2][3]. Also the second bit about NOTICE contents bubbling up would also

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Unomi 1.0.0-incubating

Hi, You might also want to look at [1]. From a quick look I think you are also also missing a disclaimer. Thanks, Justin 1. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

Hi, > 1) Swiz Framework. There have been 6 contributors (not looking at pull requests), 5 of which have ben active in github this year. Would it be so hard to ask them? > 2) AS3Commons Which has two contributors and no closed pull requests. One of the contributors has already been asked,

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

Hi, > Strange, my GH view showed 12. That includes pull requests. > And what do we ask? To sign an SGA or something else? a) If they are OK to have the code donated to Apache b) have they signed an ICLA for the project and if not would they be willing to sign an Apache one. > And how many

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Myriad 0.1.0 (incubating)

Hi, +1 binding. I checked: - release name contains incubating - signature and hash good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good. May be minor LICENSE issue re bootstrap (see below). - no unexpected binary files - all source files have Apache headers - can compile from source You might

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Myriad 0.1.0 (incubating)

Hi, >> Could not find zookeeper-tests.jar (org.apache.zookeeper:zookeeper:3.4.6). > > Searched in the following locations: > > file:/Users/johnament/.m2/repository/org/apache/zookeeper/zookeeper/3.4.6/zookeeper-3.4.6-tests.jar I run into the same error, assumed it was my setup and rm -rf

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)

Hi, Sorry -1 Due to license and copyright issues and possible crypto issue. I checked: - artefact contains incubating - signature and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE is missing a couple of things/has a few issues - NOTICE is good but may be missing thing form other Apache bundled

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Myriad 0.1.0 (incubating)

Hi, Sorry but it -1 due to inclusion of a jar in the source release. This issue has come up before on the incubator mailing list e.g. [4]. Other than some minor license issues everything else is good. I checked: - artefact name contains incubating - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)

Hi, > 1. HP donated the Trafodion code to Apache several months ago. We have gone > through all the legal steps to get the code donated. As part of this > process we removed all the HP copyrights except for our test files and > documentation. Do we have to remove all the Copyrights in order to

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)

Hi, > As for #4 - the pictures were taken by someone in our organization. I will > tell him that they look professional -:) They are not licensed or anything, > just personal photos. If they are fine with them being distributed then that's all good IMO. You may want to add something in

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)

Hi, Thanks for the clarification. > The ASF politely requests that contributors remove copyright notices from > individual files. There are a variety of reasons for this request[2]. I assume you mean their own copyright notices you can’t remove other peoples right? Any advice in what to do

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

Hi, > anyway, I've read it again, in the context of what you've said here, and it > seems like we should not have included the Apache licensed dependencies in > the binary LICENSE file Yep that’s correct. > I didn't change the binary NOTICE files as I believe that their contents > are just

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

HI, > Maybe we did something wrong here, but those classes are here: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-core/src/main/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/structure/io/graphml/GraphMLWriterHelper.java > > The are basically just recreated as inner classes in that

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - release files include incubating in the name - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE good (although no need to list Apache licensed software) - NOTICE has an issue (see below) - All source files have Apache headers - No unexpected binaries in source

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

Hi, >> HPPC (no notice file) > > You'd previously suggested that we assume a standard notice for HPPC and > add copyright but i believe i found that copyright in their source notice > at one point. Up to you/the PPMC I think, INAL but given there's no NOTICE there’s no need to do anything. >

Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

Hi, > Who says its OK? Unless approved by VP Legal it's not OK. It’s been discussed see [1][2][3[4]], note that is just for GPL with a specific exclusion not ordinary GPL licenced software. The exclusion states: # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, # if you distribute

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.9.0 RC1

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - name includes incubating - signature and hash correct - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - all ASF Licence files have Apache header - no unexpected binaries - can compile from source I still think the last section in the LICENSE is a little confusing and

Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.10.0-incubating (RC2)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - names contain incubating - signatures good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - There are NO unexpended binary in the source release - All files have apache headers - Can compile from source Minor issue there’s no need to list the copyright for abego

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Myriad 0.2.0 (incubating)

Hi, > Just as a note, you have two PGP keys listed in LDAP. Neither of which > appears to be the key used to sign this release. Odd I get: gpg: Signature made Wed 25 May 12:20:06 2016 AEST using RSA key ID 2AAE9E3F gpg: Good signature from "Darin Johnson (CODE SIGNING KEY) "

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Myriad 0.2.0 (incubating)

Hi, +1 binding Also easy to review. I checked: - files include incubating - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exits - NOTICE and LICENSE good - All files have apache headers - No unexpected binaries - Can compile from source Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Mynewt 0.9.0-incubating-rc3

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - all artefacts contain incubating - signatures correct - LICENSE and NOTICE all good - DISCLAIMER exists - all Apache licensed files have ASF headers - no unexpected binaries - can compile from source - can run blinky example Thanks, Justin

Re: Number of projects in Incubation [was: [VOTE] Release Apache Mynewt 0.9.0-incubating-rc1]

Hi, > An additional graph that would be super-interesting to get is "Months in > Incubation" for the current podlings, plotted over time. Some of the data can be found here [1] (column B) Thanks, Justin 1. http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html

Re: Number of projects in Incubation [was: [VOTE] Release Apache Mynewt 0.9.0-incubating-rc1]

Hi, > as always, snapshots in time is not as useful as trending data over time. I > guess it is time to take a look at whimsy.. :-) http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html Justin - To unsubscribe,

Re: Looking for mentors

Hi, > If each graduating podling provided 2 or 3 mentors (or one person prepared to > mentor 2 or 3 projects) the problem would be solved. Not all graduating projects have people who can act in an official mentor role i.e. you need to be IPMC and that generally means being a member. Justin

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Beam, version 0.1.0-incubating

Hi, +1 (binding) IMO license issue need to be fixed for the next release. I checked: - file name of release contains incubating - while signature checks out, there’s no KEYS file in the list area and there seems to be no key on file for the release manager [1] However there is a KEYS file in

Re: Looking for mentors

Hi, > FWIW: I'm still a big fan of having a cap on the # of podlings a single mentor > could have I have a self imposed cap and I’m currently at capacity so sorry can’t help out. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Mynewt 0.9.0-incubating-rc1

Hi, > I'm still interested in figuring out how to build this thing The easiest way to to compile the newt package (by tuning build.sh) first and then use the produced “newt” binary to compile the blinky project via instructions in the read me. > - You're trying to release "Apache Mynewt" but

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Mynewt 0.9.0-incubating-rc1

Hi, > I think you need to ping your mentors, and if they are not able, then I > think you need to raise this as an issue with the Incubator PMC, either in > separate thread or put it in the report for next month. AFAIK it's not the responsibility of the mentors to vote, it's the responsibility

Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.10.0-incubating (RC1)

Hi, Sorry -1 (binding) due to unexpected binaries in the source release. For the source artefact I checked: - signatures and hashes good - file name contain incubating - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - There are unexpended binary in the source release (see below) - All files

Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.10.0-incubating (RC1)

Hi, > We will update trunk to remove the specified files. Will we need to begin > voting again for another release candidate with these changes, or would it > suffice that the next release will have this fix? Depends on how other IPMC members vote, if you get 3 +1 votes and more +1’s than -1’s

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)

Hi, +1 (binding) to release source package, but -1 for the client connivence binary until the 4 clause BSD licensing issue is resolved. For the source released I checked: - all files have incubating - signatures check out - disclaimer exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary in

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)

Hi, > Looking at the openssl issue, I want to figure out why we are statically > linking the libraries. If there is a key reason it needs to be static > rather than dynamically linked, then I'll want to go to legal-discuss and > ask whether we can distribute it, given license changes in the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Slider (incubating) release 0.91.0-incubating

Hi, Sorry but it -1 binding due to a war file in the source release [1] The war file contains compiled jar files. Everything else is fine and if that file wasn’t there I would vote +1. I checked: - name includes incubating - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE

Re: Request to review updated License (Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.5.3 (incubating))

Hi, > I think these lines for "The Apache License 2.0" for the non-ASF are > misleading (everything else is also Apache License) and is not > required by the Apache license. While it’s not in line with current policy, it's not a licensing error to list them. Several projects do list them. It

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.1 (incubating)

Hi, > As for the BSD license - the following text was added to the LICENSE file: > > Is there a better way to deal with this issue? That’s a good way to deal with this 4 clause BSD issue, given the large amount of text in the LICENSE I guess I missed that, sorry. The short form (a pointer to

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.1 (incubating)

HI, > Maybe we need clarification from legal? BSD 4 clause is just 3 clause w/ > additional ask to not use UoC to endorse. It seems still in line w/ AL so > I would assume no problems. The 4 clause BSD license is considered category X other than in a couple of cases i.e. OpenSSL where the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Taverna Command-line Tool 3.1.0-incubating RC3

Hi, > license text should go in the LICENSE files, while NOTICE should just > contain a brief enumeration with some details (file/s, copyright holder, > license name and original source) about the third-party source components > included. Agree but just to make clear NOTICE should usually not

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Taverna Command-line Tool 3.1.0-incubating RC3

Hi, +1 (binding). Can you fix the LICENSE and NOTICE issues in the next release please. > Note that Taverna still suffers from not having enough active mentors I can help by reviewing the release but I’m at my limit mentor wise sorry. I checked: - artefact names contain incubating -

Re: Worked LICENSE and NOTICE example

Hi, > Great idea, Justin! Thanks! I’m considering making several examples, perhaps a few other people can help me out? > What about including an example in the NOTICE about the inclusion of a > non-permissive 3rd party license (e.g., LGPL)? You can’t have a dependancy (other than optional) on

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache FreeMarker 2.3.25 (incubating)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - files name contain incubating - signatures and hashes correct - DISCLAIMER exists - NOTICE and LICENSE ok, although NOTICE contains text that should be in LICENSE. It’s also not clear to me if the text in NOTICE is referring to Apache FreeMarker or some previous

Worked LICENSE and NOTICE example

Hi, At the last ApacheCon I was discussing with Marvin about some of the issues around assembling license and notice files. One of the ideas we come up with was to have some worked examples. So here is a small example I put together of a fictional Apache project using Bootstrap. Code is on

Re: Worked LICENSE and NOTICE example

Hi, > One question - do the other licenses (MIT/BSD) have to be copied as separate > files That is the preferred way as otherwise the LICENSE file can become too long if many licenses are involved. > or listing their content in LICENSE file is acceptable? That is also acceptable. If you have

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Taverna Command-line Tool 3.1.0-incubating RC3

HI, > I would think this means that the taverna-execution-hadoop.jar file > (which is distributed in Maven Central) must include the full notice > "somewhere”, Yes, it's normally it in a header of a file somewhere in a source release. That’s why it best to put it somewhere and add a pointer to

Re: Request to review updated License (Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.5.3 (incubating))

Hi, > LICENSE is missing reset.css. (7) Note this version bundled may not be public > domain unlike this one (8) so you may need to sort that out. This is still an issue as far as I can tell. The code in question doesn't have a license. I’d contact the author to conform or replace with a

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0-incubating

Hi, Say but it's-1 (binding) from me as: The LICENSE issue raised with last release re the 4 clause BSD license has not been dealt wth. The installer, client and server packages are missing a DISCLAIMER file. [1] The license issue is for swsprintf.cpp and swscanf.cpp files, I can see the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.1 (incubating)

Hi, Not having a good day and responded to the wrong vote thread. Correcting. Sorry but it's-1 (binding) from me as: The LICENSE issue raised with last release re the 4 clause BSD license has not been dealt wth. The installer, client and server packages are missing a DISCLAIMER file. [1] The

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0-incubating

Hi, And I stuffed and and posted that to the wrong vote thread - please ignore. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: Worked LICENSE and NOTICE example

Hi, > Someday a tool to codify this into a wizard like thing would be awesome. :) IMO (and I know others have different opinions) I don’t think that actually possible other than in simple cases. if you know the policy it’s reasonably obvious what needs to be done and a tool would not actually

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Omid 0.8.2.0 (incubating)

Hi, +0 (binding) as NOTICE is not correct and unable to compile from source. Please fix this in the next release. > Sources for the release: > http://people.apache.org/~daijy/omid-incubating-0.8.2.0-rc5/apache-omid-incubating-0.8.2.0-src.tar.gz Please place the release in the correct location

Re: Worked LICENSE and NOTICE example

HI, > This gets tricky because something in category B won't be in the > source release, and thus should not be in the standard LICENSE/NOTICE. Correct and that why it's a good example to make - may be a few other examples first to cover other issues (propagation of NOTICE files for instance

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0

Hi, Sorry it’s -1 binding due to the inclusion of GPL licenced files [1] and other license issues [2] and unable to compile from source. Happy to reconsider if explained. I checked: - release contains incubating - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE has some minor issues

OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

Hi, Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread. So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute. [3][4] Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a couple of places. For instance: - The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0

Hi, > We have updated the files to resolve the license issues. Thanks for making the changes. As the RC artefact has changed I believe the PPMC would need to revote on it before the IPMC can vote on it. Given there been no code changes that PPMC vote should be a trivial process. > We managed

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.5.1 (incubating)

Hi, +1 binding, but please looking into the issues below for next release. I checked: - name contain incubating - signature and hash good - disclaimer exists - NOTICE and LICENSE have some issues - there a few source files without Apache headers e.g. python scripts in [1] - no unexpected binary

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Zeppelin (incubating) 0.5.6-incubating (RC2)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in name - signatures and hashes correct - DISCLAIMER exist - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - all source file have apache headers - no unexpected binary files - can compile from source The year needs updating in the NOTICE file. I also had a quick look at the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Twill-0.7.0-incubating

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in name - signatures and hashes correct - disclaimer exists - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - no binary files - all files have apache source headers - can compile from source Very minor issue - year is incorrect in NOTICE. Thanks Justin

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >