+1(binding), i checked :
- incubating in name
- Signatures and hashed good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE is fine
- NOTICE is fine
- source file have ASF headers
- No unexpected binary files
Regards
Liang
Nirojan Selvanathan wrote
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is a call for
+1 binding
Glad to see the potential dependency license issue fixed.
Good luck.
Sheng Wu 吴晟
Twitter, wusheng1108
Sheng Wu 于2020年6月28日周日 下午4:33写道：
> Hi Yuansheng
>
> Thanks for fixing this quickly.
>
> Sheng Wu 吴晟
> Twitter, wusheng1108
>
>
> YuanSheng Wang 于2020年6月28日周日 下午4:22写道：
>
>> Many
Hi Yuansheng
Thanks for fixing this quickly.
Sheng Wu 吴晟
Twitter, wusheng1108
YuanSheng Wang 于2020年6月28日周日 下午4:22写道：
> Many thx for you. I have updated the two repositories `lua-resty-radixtree`
> and `jsonschema`.
>
> radixtree v1.9: Apache 2.0 License
> jsonschema 0.8: MIT license
>
> ^_^
Many thx for you. I have updated the two repositories `lua-resty-radixtree`
and `jsonschema`.
radixtree v1.9: Apache 2.0 License
jsonschema 0.8: MIT license
^_^
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 4:16 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I talked with the people of api7, they have updated the license,
Hi,
> I talked with the people of api7, they have updated the license, the GPL
> part has been removed. It should be better now.
Thanks for doing that, much appreciated.
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Hi Justin
I talked with the people of api7, they have updated the license, the GPL
part has been removed.
It should be better now.
Sheng Wu 吴晟
Twitter, wusheng1108
Justin Mclean 于2020年6月28日周日 下午4:04写道：
> Hi,
>
> > These two dependencies are designed and implemented specifically for
> Apache
Hi,
> These two dependencies are designed and implemented specifically for Apache
> APISIX,
> and will always keep the Apache 2.0 license for Apache APISIX.
> At the same time, we don't want just use these two dependencies instead of
> Apache APISIX as a whole,
> so we've set up a dual licenses.
Ming Wen 于2020年6月28日周日 下午2:36写道：
> > "This project is dual licensed under the Apache 2.0 and AGPL licenses：
> > 1. If used with Apache APISIX, the license is Apache License 2.0;
> > 2. otherwise the license is AGPL.”
> > How did this come about? I hav a possible concern about this but not sure
>
> "This project is dual licensed under the Apache 2.0 and AGPL licenses：
> 1. If used with Apache APISIX, the license is Apache License 2.0;
> 2. otherwise the license is AGPL.”
> How did this come about? I hav a possible concern about this but not sure
if it’s an issue or not.
These two
+1 ( binding )
I checked the following.
1. Incubating in name.
2. PGP Signatures.
3. SHA512 Checksums.
4. DISCLAIMER exists.
5. LICENSE and NOTICE are fine.
Regards
Kevin
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:21 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> HI,
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
>
HI,
+1 (binding)
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signature and hash is fine
- DISCLAIMER exists
- NOTICE and LICENSE are all good
- No unextedtcd binary files
- All ASF file have correct headers
- Can compile
I did notice one odd thing I’ve not noticed before. In [1][2]
"This project is
Welocme IPMC to vote, we got 0 +1 binding vote now.
Thanks,
Ming Wen, Apache APISIX & Apache SkyWalking
Twitter: _WenMing
YuanSheng Wang 于2020年6月24日周三 上午9:50写道：
> Carry my +1 non-binding from dev.
>
> I checked all those steps and run the Apache APISIX successfully at my
> local
Carry my +1 non-binding from dev.
I checked all those steps and run the Apache APISIX successfully at my
local machine(fedora 31).
And it shows the correct version `1.4`.
[x] Download links are valid.
[x] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
[x] DISCLAIMER is included.
[x] LICENSE and NOTICE
Hello everyone,
This is a call for the vote to release Apache APISIX (Incubating) version
1.4-RC1.
The Apache APISIX community has voted on and approved a proposal to
release Apache APISIX (Incubating) version 1.4-RC1.
We now kindly request the Incubator IPMC members review and vote on
this
14 matches
Mail list logo
