Re: GPL with exceptions (was Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1))

[John D. Ament]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 9:21 PM Eric Covener  wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 8:04 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
> > That's an interesting one.  I'm a bit surprised if that would be
> considered
> > OK for this scenario.  Sure, HTTPD is usually used as a standalone
> server.
> > What happens if you embed HTTPD in your own data parser?  You're
> > effectively violating that license.  This specific case seems very Cat-X
> to
> > me.  Similar to the JSON license "no evil" clause.  I actually don't see
> > how this is a build tool (though its been 5 years since I've had to deal
> > with make).
>
> It cannot really be considered a build tool, but it can be generated
> during a build. We distribute into reduce the build-time dependencies.
> Either way, it needs to be considered further.
>
>
Eric, I just want to point out that the purpose of this isn't to beat up on
HTTPD (or any other TLP).  Podlings tend to reference what TLPs do as
canonical and hence correct.  Those oddities tend to turn into "are we sure
that's right" which ends up turning into legal resolutions to better guide
the foundation.

Thanks for taking this on, and apologies for any confusion coming your way.


>
>
> --
> Eric Covener
> cove...@gmail.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Wang Wei]

Hi all,

Thank you for taking time to review and vote.

The VOTE has passed with 4 +1 binding votes
Justin Mclean
Thejas Nair
John D.Ament
Alan Gates (carried from d...@singa.incubator.apache.org)

and 1 +1 non-biding vote
Anh Dinh

No 0s or -1

We'll now roll this release out to the mirrors.

Many thanks,
Wei

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Wang Wei  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache
> SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating).
>
> The vote thread is at:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mb
> ox/%3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%
> 40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> and the result is at:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> 3ccajz0ilspborscstawuraowwetidb4cn14ak5sgdyb8umxoj...@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
> We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.
>
> The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0/
>
> The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
> MD5:  08 CA 31 10 4E 79 02 16  A1 D7 3F 20 2D 60 21 BB
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc
>
> and the signature file is:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0
> /apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0-RC1.tar.gz.asc
>
> The Github tag is at:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/releases/tag/v1.1.0-rc1
> commit ID is: 59ca44a7ce38ce4f965511c805cda074d0b8e360
>
> To check the license, you can use the Apache Rat tool as follows:
> 1. download & decompress apache rat from http://creadur.apache.org/rat/
> download_rat.cgi
> 2. run the following command under singa folder:
> java -jar /PATH/TO/RAT/apache-rat-0.11.jar -E rat-excludes -d . >
> rat_check
> 3. check the results in file named "rat_check"
>
> Please check and vote on releasing this package. The vote is open for at
> least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 votes are
> cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SINGA 1.0.0-incubating
> [ ]  0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> Best,
> Wei
>

Re: GPL with exceptions (was Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1))

[Eric Covener]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 8:04 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> That's an interesting one.  I'm a bit surprised if that would be considered
> OK for this scenario.  Sure, HTTPD is usually used as a standalone server.
> What happens if you embed HTTPD in your own data parser?  You're
> effectively violating that license.  This specific case seems very Cat-X to
> me.  Similar to the JSON license "no evil" clause.  I actually don't see
> how this is a build tool (though its been 5 years since I've had to deal
> with make).

It cannot really be considered a build tool, but it can be generated
during a build. We distribute into reduce the build-time dependencies.
Either way, it needs to be considered further.



-- 
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

GPL with exceptions (was Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1))

[John D. Ament]

Changing topic to avoid polluting the vote.

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 7:09 PM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > The problem I see is how autoconf files are actually applied with their
> > headers and licenses.
>
> Interesting. So are you saying it would be OK to remove the original
> license headers and replace it with an ASF one?
>
>
That's effectively what the license is saying to do, as long as you're
meeting the requirements.

Note - its very hard to meet these requirements outside of build chains I
would imagine, since you're limiting derivative software.


> > If I look within HTTPD for instance there's no headers
>
> Like this file [1]? :-) Not Autoconf but aa build tool and the same GPL
> exception.
>
>
That's an interesting one.  I'm a bit surprised if that would be considered
OK for this scenario.  Sure, HTTPD is usually used as a standalone server.
What happens if you embed HTTPD in your own data parser?  You're
effectively violating that license.  This specific case seems very Cat-X to
me.  Similar to the JSON license "no evil" clause.  I actually don't see
how this is a build tool (though its been 5 years since I've had to deal
with make).


> BTW There a fair number of incubating and TLPs containing files with GPL
> exception headers. [2]
>
>
Most of those are OK, if you look they're autoconf, and notice
declarations.  Granted I only skimmed the first 2 pages.


> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/apache/httpd/blob/fbc5e20ead005fd3a2bec05924f9e90dfd195406/server/util_expr_parse.h
> 2.
> https://github.com/search?utf8=✓=org%3Aapache+%22As+a+special+exception%22=Code=searchresults
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> The problem I see is how autoconf files are actually applied with their
> headers and licenses.

Interesting. So are you saying it would be OK to remove the original license 
headers and replace it with an ASF one?

> If I look within HTTPD for instance there's no headers

Like this file [1]? :-) Not Autoconf but aa build tool and the same GPL 
exception.

BTW There a fair number of incubating and TLPs containing files with GPL 
exception headers. [2]

Thanks,
Justin

1. 
https://github.com/apache/httpd/blob/fbc5e20ead005fd3a2bec05924f9e90dfd195406/server/util_expr_parse.h
2. 
https://github.com/search?utf8=✓=org%3Aapache+%22As+a+special+exception%22=Code=searchresults
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[John D. Ament]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:21 PM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Changing my vote back to +1 (binding).
>
> > Ok, based on the information provided I'm changing to a +1.  We should
> > figure out if glog can really be considered acceptable, but if it is
> > confirmed as optional then its moot per the discussion in
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-280 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-280>
> From my understanding the GPL licensed files in question, have an
> exclusion clause, and are part of Autoconf which would make them acceptable
> as per. [1]
>
>
The problem I see is how autoconf files are actually applied with their
headers and licenses.  If I look within HTTPD for instance, there's no
headers, nothing to indicate a problem or potential issue with the code -
https://github.com/apache/httpd .  This aligns to how I've understood
autoconf to be applied.
However, glog is retaining the original headers -
https://github.com/google/glog - this makes it look more suspicious that
there's a licensing issue.  To me, this says that glog is using the GPL
license because they have continued to apply GPL to the codebase.
Basically, it seems like glog has misapplied the license.



> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#build-tools <
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#build-tools>

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Changing my vote back to +1 (binding).

> Ok, based on the information provided I'm changing to a +1.  We should
> figure out if glog can really be considered acceptable, but if it is
> confirmed as optional then its moot per the discussion in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-280 
> 
From my understanding the GPL licensed files in question, have an exclusion 
clause, and are part of Autoconf which would make them acceptable as per. [1]

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#build-tools 

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[John D. Ament]

Ok, based on the information provided I'm changing to a +1.  We should
figure out if glog can really be considered acceptable, but if it is
confirmed as optional then its moot per the discussion in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-280

John

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:46 AM Wang Wei  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We made glog an optional dependency in this ticket
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SINGA-166 and the commit history is
> here
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/commits/master/include/singa/utils/logging.h
>
> I removed glog from .travis.yml in this PR https://github.com/apache/
> incubator-singa/pull/306
> 
> And it passed all unit tests  https://travis-ci.org/apache/
> incubator-singa/builds/200221600
>
> I think the above links can confirm that glog is an optional dependency of
> Singa.
> Please let us know if we need to provide other information.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Changing my vote to be also -1 (binding) until the license / dependancy
> > issue sorted, but everything else looks good.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Wang Wei]

Hi all,

We made glog an optional dependency in this ticket
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SINGA-166 and the commit history is
here
https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/commits/master/include/singa/utils/logging.h

I removed glog from .travis.yml in this PR https://github.com/apache/
incubator-singa/pull/306
And it passed all unit tests  https://travis-ci.org/apache/
incubator-singa/builds/200221600

I think the above links can confirm that glog is an optional dependency of
Singa.
Please let us know if we need to provide other information.

Thanks.

Best,
Wei


On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Changing my vote to be also -1 (binding) until the license / dependancy
> issue sorted, but everything else looks good.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Changing my vote to be also -1 (binding) until the license / dependancy issue 
sorted, but everything else looks good.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[John D. Ament]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:34 PM John D. Ament  wrote:

> Wei,
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:19 PM Wang Wei  wrote:
>
> John,
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:24 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > Wang,
> >
> > First, please review [1], especially the Note section.
> >
> Thank you for the information.
>
> > Second, even if I were to change my vote from -1 to +1 do you have enough
> > votes?  Only Justin has voted +1.  Or were you carrying over Alan Gates'
> > vote?
> >
> I think if the glog issue is resolved (considering it as an optional
> dependency), the -1 vote should be changed to 0 (or +1). -1 may stop others
> from checking and voting the release.
> Yes. I will carry over Alan Gates' vote.
>
>
> Until I see legal weigh in, I'm not comfortable changing my vote from a
> -1.  Based on how you're building, I'm not sure how glog can be considered
> an optional dependency.  If I remove it from my system, will singa still
> run?
>

Sorry - one more thing to clarify.  In
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-290 I mentioned explicitly the
files I found to be not in compliance.  If someone can explain to me how to
confirm that these files are not ending up in either singa's build or the
binary dependency on glog I can change my vote.


>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> >
> >
> > [1]: http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:40 PM Wang Wei  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > Could you revise your vote as the glog issue is resolved?
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Wei
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:25 AM, John D. Ament 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Fair enough.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:48 PM Niclas Hedhman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/COPYING
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John D. Ament  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Niclas,
> > > > >
> > > > > So I'll point out a couple of things.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone else (e.g. you)
> > voted a
> > > > +1
> > > > > my -1 would be moot.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. I mentioned in my response that the main issue is that I can't
> > find
> > > a
> > > > > listed license for glog and I was choosing GPL because I found a
> > source
> > > > > file with a GPL header.  If the first file I looked at was another
> > > > license,
> > > > > I would have assumed that license.  It has nothing to do with build
> > > > chain.
> > > > > If you have a link that can show that glog is BSD licensed, that
> > would
> > > > > settle this.  Note that this issue [1] exists.
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog/issues/118
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:04 AM Niclas Hedhman  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sure, but in this case it is;
> > > > > >   1. Singa depends on Glog
> > > > > >   2. Glog is BSD licensed
> > > > > >   3. Glog use a build tool chain that is GPL'd and includes a
> build
> > > > > script
> > > > > > to compensate for missing toolchain tools.
> > > > > >   4. Singa doesn't use Glog's build toolchain
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your (John) argument is that Glog is incorrectly licensed and
> > should
> > > > have
> > > > > > been GPL'd. I think that reasoning is incorrect, and that Glog is
> > > > > licensed
> > > > > > correctly and hence it is not relevant whether it is optional or
> > not
> > > > for
> > > > > > Singa.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given that we have both belt and suspenders for this, I think the
> > -1
> > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > withdrawn regarding the Glog dependency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > Niclas
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John D. Ament <
> > > johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on
> > this
> > > > > type
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > topic.  Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required
> > dependencies.
> > > > > Henri
> > > > > > > and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final
> > > result.
> > > > > > > Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional
> features.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall
> > into
> > > > the
> > > > > > GPL
> > > > > > > bucket though.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman <
> > nic...@hedhman.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG,
> > i.e.
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to
> > the
> > > > ASF
> > > > > > > > software. I assume 

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[John D. Ament]

Wei,


On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:19 PM Wang Wei  wrote:

> John,
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:24 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > Wang,
> >
> > First, please review [1], especially the Note section.
> >
> Thank you for the information.
>
> > Second, even if I were to change my vote from -1 to +1 do you have enough
> > votes?  Only Justin has voted +1.  Or were you carrying over Alan Gates'
> > vote?
> >
> I think if the glog issue is resolved (considering it as an optional
> dependency), the -1 vote should be changed to 0 (or +1). -1 may stop others
> from checking and voting the release.
> Yes. I will carry over Alan Gates' vote.
>
>
Until I see legal weigh in, I'm not comfortable changing my vote from a
-1.  Based on how you're building, I'm not sure how glog can be considered
an optional dependency.  If I remove it from my system, will singa still
run?


> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> >
> >
> > [1]: http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:40 PM Wang Wei  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > Could you revise your vote as the glog issue is resolved?
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Wei
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:25 AM, John D. Ament 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Fair enough.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:48 PM Niclas Hedhman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/COPYING
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John D. Ament  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Niclas,
> > > > >
> > > > > So I'll point out a couple of things.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone else (e.g. you)
> > voted a
> > > > +1
> > > > > my -1 would be moot.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. I mentioned in my response that the main issue is that I can't
> > find
> > > a
> > > > > listed license for glog and I was choosing GPL because I found a
> > source
> > > > > file with a GPL header.  If the first file I looked at was another
> > > > license,
> > > > > I would have assumed that license.  It has nothing to do with build
> > > > chain.
> > > > > If you have a link that can show that glog is BSD licensed, that
> > would
> > > > > settle this.  Note that this issue [1] exists.
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog/issues/118
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:04 AM Niclas Hedhman  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sure, but in this case it is;
> > > > > >   1. Singa depends on Glog
> > > > > >   2. Glog is BSD licensed
> > > > > >   3. Glog use a build tool chain that is GPL'd and includes a
> build
> > > > > script
> > > > > > to compensate for missing toolchain tools.
> > > > > >   4. Singa doesn't use Glog's build toolchain
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your (John) argument is that Glog is incorrectly licensed and
> > should
> > > > have
> > > > > > been GPL'd. I think that reasoning is incorrect, and that Glog is
> > > > > licensed
> > > > > > correctly and hence it is not relevant whether it is optional or
> > not
> > > > for
> > > > > > Singa.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given that we have both belt and suspenders for this, I think the
> > -1
> > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > withdrawn regarding the Glog dependency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > Niclas
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John D. Ament <
> > > johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on
> > this
> > > > > type
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > topic.  Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required
> > dependencies.
> > > > > Henri
> > > > > > > and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final
> > > result.
> > > > > > > Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional
> features.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall
> > into
> > > > the
> > > > > > GPL
> > > > > > > bucket though.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman <
> > nic...@hedhman.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG,
> > i.e.
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to
> > the
> > > > ASF
> > > > > > > > software. I assume that Google is much more worried about
> this
> > > and
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > have checked with their Legal team...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me,
> > or
> > > > > hasn't
> > > > > > > FSF
> > > > > > > > stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build
> > > > > > toolchain?
> > > > > > > > (otherwise they 

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Wang Wei]

John,

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:24 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> Wang,
>
> First, please review [1], especially the Note section.
>
Thank you for the information.

> Second, even if I were to change my vote from -1 to +1 do you have enough
> votes?  Only Justin has voted +1.  Or were you carrying over Alan Gates'
> vote?
>
I think if the glog issue is resolved (considering it as an optional
dependency), the -1 vote should be changed to 0 (or +1). -1 may stop others
from checking and voting the release.
Yes. I will carry over Alan Gates' vote.

Thanks.

Best,
Wei

>
>
> [1]: http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:40 PM Wang Wei  wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Could you revise your vote as the glog issue is resolved?
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Best,
> > Wei
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:25 AM, John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:48 PM Niclas Hedhman 
> wrote:
> >
> > > https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/COPYING
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John D. Ament 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Niclas,
> > > >
> > > > So I'll point out a couple of things.
> > > >
> > > > 1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone else (e.g. you)
> voted a
> > > +1
> > > > my -1 would be moot.
> > > >
> > > > 2. I mentioned in my response that the main issue is that I can't
> find
> > a
> > > > listed license for glog and I was choosing GPL because I found a
> source
> > > > file with a GPL header.  If the first file I looked at was another
> > > license,
> > > > I would have assumed that license.  It has nothing to do with build
> > > chain.
> > > > If you have a link that can show that glog is BSD licensed, that
> would
> > > > settle this.  Note that this issue [1] exists.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog/issues/118
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:04 AM Niclas Hedhman 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sure, but in this case it is;
> > > > >   1. Singa depends on Glog
> > > > >   2. Glog is BSD licensed
> > > > >   3. Glog use a build tool chain that is GPL'd and includes a build
> > > > script
> > > > > to compensate for missing toolchain tools.
> > > > >   4. Singa doesn't use Glog's build toolchain
> > > > >
> > > > > Your (John) argument is that Glog is incorrectly licensed and
> should
> > > have
> > > > > been GPL'd. I think that reasoning is incorrect, and that Glog is
> > > > licensed
> > > > > correctly and hence it is not relevant whether it is optional or
> not
> > > for
> > > > > Singa.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given that we have both belt and suspenders for this, I think the
> -1
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > withdrawn regarding the Glog dependency.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Niclas
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John D. Ament <
> > johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on
> this
> > > > type
> > > > > of
> > > > > > topic.  Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required
> dependencies.
> > > > Henri
> > > > > > and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final
> > result.
> > > > > > Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional features.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall
> into
> > > the
> > > > > GPL
> > > > > > bucket though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman <
> nic...@hedhman.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG,
> i.e.
> > > the
> > > > > > > equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to
> the
> > > ASF
> > > > > > > software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this
> > and
> > > > may
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > have checked with their Legal team...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me,
> or
> > > > hasn't
> > > > > > FSF
> > > > > > > stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build
> > > > > toolchain?
> > > > > > > (otherwise they can't release their own LGPL stuff)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > Niclas
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, John D. Ament <
> > > > johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -1 at least I think there's an issue.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is
> > not
> > > > > > valid.
> > > > > > > > There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml.
> > It
> > > > > > > confirmed
> > > > > > > > what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your
> > > > > required
> > > > > 

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Thejas Nair]

+1 (binding)
Verified signature and checksum
Checked updates to LICENSE, NOTICE, and RELEASE_NOTES files


On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Wang Wei  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Could you revise your vote as the glog issue is resolved?
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:25 AM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:48 PM Niclas Hedhman 
> wrote:
> >
> > > https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/COPYING
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John D. Ament 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Niclas,
> > > >
> > > > So I'll point out a couple of things.
> > > >
> > > > 1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone else (e.g. you)
> voted a
> > > +1
> > > > my -1 would be moot.
> > > >
> > > > 2. I mentioned in my response that the main issue is that I can't
> find
> > a
> > > > listed license for glog and I was choosing GPL because I found a
> source
> > > > file with a GPL header.  If the first file I looked at was another
> > > license,
> > > > I would have assumed that license.  It has nothing to do with build
> > > chain.
> > > > If you have a link that can show that glog is BSD licensed, that
> would
> > > > settle this.  Note that this issue [1] exists.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog/issues/118
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:04 AM Niclas Hedhman 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sure, but in this case it is;
> > > > >   1. Singa depends on Glog
> > > > >   2. Glog is BSD licensed
> > > > >   3. Glog use a build tool chain that is GPL'd and includes a build
> > > > script
> > > > > to compensate for missing toolchain tools.
> > > > >   4. Singa doesn't use Glog's build toolchain
> > > > >
> > > > > Your (John) argument is that Glog is incorrectly licensed and
> should
> > > have
> > > > > been GPL'd. I think that reasoning is incorrect, and that Glog is
> > > > licensed
> > > > > correctly and hence it is not relevant whether it is optional or
> not
> > > for
> > > > > Singa.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given that we have both belt and suspenders for this, I think the
> -1
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > withdrawn regarding the Glog dependency.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Niclas
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John D. Ament <
> > johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on
> this
> > > > type
> > > > > of
> > > > > > topic.  Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required
> dependencies.
> > > > Henri
> > > > > > and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final
> > result.
> > > > > > Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional features.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall
> into
> > > the
> > > > > GPL
> > > > > > bucket though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman <
> nic...@hedhman.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG,
> i.e.
> > > the
> > > > > > > equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to
> the
> > > ASF
> > > > > > > software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this
> > and
> > > > may
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > have checked with their Legal team...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me,
> or
> > > > hasn't
> > > > > > FSF
> > > > > > > stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build
> > > > > toolchain?
> > > > > > > (otherwise they can't release their own LGPL stuff)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > Niclas
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, John D. Ament <
> > > > johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -1 at least I think there's an issue.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is
> > not
> > > > > > valid.
> > > > > > > > There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml.
> > It
> > > > > > > confirmed
> > > > > > > > what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your
> > > > > required
> > > > > > > > packages.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You require glog [1], which I can't find a license for.
> > However,
> > > > > glog
> > > > > > > > includes [2] which is GPL, which makes glog GPL and as a
> > result,
> > > > your
> > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog
> > > > > > > > [2]: https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/missing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:24 PM Wang Wei  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > 

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[John D. Ament]

Wang,

First, please review [1], especially the Note section.
Second, even if I were to change my vote from -1 to +1 do you have enough
votes?  Only Justin has voted +1.  Or were you carrying over Alan Gates'
vote?


[1]: http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:40 PM Wang Wei  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Could you revise your vote as the glog issue is resolved?
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:25 AM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> Fair enough.
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:48 PM Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
>
> > https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/COPYING
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Niclas,
> > >
> > > So I'll point out a couple of things.
> > >
> > > 1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone else (e.g. you) voted a
> > +1
> > > my -1 would be moot.
> > >
> > > 2. I mentioned in my response that the main issue is that I can't find
> a
> > > listed license for glog and I was choosing GPL because I found a source
> > > file with a GPL header.  If the first file I looked at was another
> > license,
> > > I would have assumed that license.  It has nothing to do with build
> > chain.
> > > If you have a link that can show that glog is BSD licensed, that would
> > > settle this.  Note that this issue [1] exists.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog/issues/118
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:04 AM Niclas Hedhman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sure, but in this case it is;
> > > >   1. Singa depends on Glog
> > > >   2. Glog is BSD licensed
> > > >   3. Glog use a build tool chain that is GPL'd and includes a build
> > > script
> > > > to compensate for missing toolchain tools.
> > > >   4. Singa doesn't use Glog's build toolchain
> > > >
> > > > Your (John) argument is that Glog is incorrectly licensed and should
> > have
> > > > been GPL'd. I think that reasoning is incorrect, and that Glog is
> > > licensed
> > > > correctly and hence it is not relevant whether it is optional or not
> > for
> > > > Singa.
> > > >
> > > > Given that we have both belt and suspenders for this, I think the -1
> > can
> > > be
> > > > withdrawn regarding the Glog dependency.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Niclas
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John D. Ament <
> johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on this
> > > type
> > > > of
> > > > > topic.  Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required dependencies.
> > > Henri
> > > > > and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final
> result.
> > > > > Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional features.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall into
> > the
> > > > GPL
> > > > > bucket though.
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG, i.e.
> > the
> > > > > > equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to the
> > ASF
> > > > > > software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this
> and
> > > may
> > > > > even
> > > > > > have checked with their Legal team...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me, or
> > > hasn't
> > > > > FSF
> > > > > > stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build
> > > > toolchain?
> > > > > > (otherwise they can't release their own LGPL stuff)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > Niclas
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, John D. Ament <
> > > johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -1 at least I think there's an issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is
> not
> > > > > valid.
> > > > > > > There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml.
> It
> > > > > > confirmed
> > > > > > > what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your
> > > > required
> > > > > > > packages.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You require glog [1], which I can't find a license for.
> However,
> > > > glog
> > > > > > > includes [2] which is GPL, which makes glog GPL and as a
> result,
> > > your
> > > > > > code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog
> > > > > > > [2]: https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/missing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:24 PM Wang Wei 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to
> > > release
> > > > > > > Apache
> > > 

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Wang Wei]

Hi John,

Could you revise your vote as the glog issue is resolved?
Thanks.

Best,
Wei

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:25 AM, John D. Ament  wrote:

> Fair enough.
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:48 PM Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
>
> > https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/COPYING
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Niclas,
> > >
> > > So I'll point out a couple of things.
> > >
> > > 1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone else (e.g. you) voted a
> > +1
> > > my -1 would be moot.
> > >
> > > 2. I mentioned in my response that the main issue is that I can't find
> a
> > > listed license for glog and I was choosing GPL because I found a source
> > > file with a GPL header.  If the first file I looked at was another
> > license,
> > > I would have assumed that license.  It has nothing to do with build
> > chain.
> > > If you have a link that can show that glog is BSD licensed, that would
> > > settle this.  Note that this issue [1] exists.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog/issues/118
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:04 AM Niclas Hedhman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sure, but in this case it is;
> > > >   1. Singa depends on Glog
> > > >   2. Glog is BSD licensed
> > > >   3. Glog use a build tool chain that is GPL'd and includes a build
> > > script
> > > > to compensate for missing toolchain tools.
> > > >   4. Singa doesn't use Glog's build toolchain
> > > >
> > > > Your (John) argument is that Glog is incorrectly licensed and should
> > have
> > > > been GPL'd. I think that reasoning is incorrect, and that Glog is
> > > licensed
> > > > correctly and hence it is not relevant whether it is optional or not
> > for
> > > > Singa.
> > > >
> > > > Given that we have both belt and suspenders for this, I think the -1
> > can
> > > be
> > > > withdrawn regarding the Glog dependency.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Niclas
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John D. Ament <
> johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on this
> > > type
> > > > of
> > > > > topic.  Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required dependencies.
> > > Henri
> > > > > and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final
> result.
> > > > > Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional features.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall into
> > the
> > > > GPL
> > > > > bucket though.
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG, i.e.
> > the
> > > > > > equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to the
> > ASF
> > > > > > software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this
> and
> > > may
> > > > > even
> > > > > > have checked with their Legal team...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me, or
> > > hasn't
> > > > > FSF
> > > > > > stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build
> > > > toolchain?
> > > > > > (otherwise they can't release their own LGPL stuff)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > Niclas
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, John D. Ament <
> > > johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -1 at least I think there's an issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is
> not
> > > > > valid.
> > > > > > > There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml.
> It
> > > > > > confirmed
> > > > > > > what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your
> > > > required
> > > > > > > packages.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You require glog [1], which I can't find a license for.
> However,
> > > > glog
> > > > > > > includes [2] which is GPL, which makes glog GPL and as a
> result,
> > > your
> > > > > > code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog
> > > > > > > [2]: https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/missing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:24 PM Wang Wei 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to
> > > release
> > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The vote thread is at:
> > > > > > > >
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > > > > > > > 3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%4
> > > > > > > 0mail.gmail.com
> > > > > > > > %3E
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and the result is at:

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[John D. Ament]

Fair enough.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:48 PM Niclas Hedhman  wrote:

> https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/COPYING
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > Niclas,
> >
> > So I'll point out a couple of things.
> >
> > 1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone else (e.g. you) voted a
> +1
> > my -1 would be moot.
> >
> > 2. I mentioned in my response that the main issue is that I can't find a
> > listed license for glog and I was choosing GPL because I found a source
> > file with a GPL header.  If the first file I looked at was another
> license,
> > I would have assumed that license.  It has nothing to do with build
> chain.
> > If you have a link that can show that glog is BSD licensed, that would
> > settle this.  Note that this issue [1] exists.
> >
> > John
> >
> > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog/issues/118
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:04 AM Niclas Hedhman 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Sure, but in this case it is;
> > >   1. Singa depends on Glog
> > >   2. Glog is BSD licensed
> > >   3. Glog use a build tool chain that is GPL'd and includes a build
> > script
> > > to compensate for missing toolchain tools.
> > >   4. Singa doesn't use Glog's build toolchain
> > >
> > > Your (John) argument is that Glog is incorrectly licensed and should
> have
> > > been GPL'd. I think that reasoning is incorrect, and that Glog is
> > licensed
> > > correctly and hence it is not relevant whether it is optional or not
> for
> > > Singa.
> > >
> > > Given that we have both belt and suspenders for this, I think the -1
> can
> > be
> > > withdrawn regarding the Glog dependency.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Niclas
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John D. Ament 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on this
> > type
> > > of
> > > > topic.  Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required dependencies.
> > Henri
> > > > and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final result.
> > > > Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional features.
> > > >
> > > > We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall into
> the
> > > GPL
> > > > bucket though.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG, i.e.
> the
> > > > > equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to the
> ASF
> > > > > software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this and
> > may
> > > > even
> > > > > have checked with their Legal team...
> > > > >
> > > > > Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me, or
> > hasn't
> > > > FSF
> > > > > stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build
> > > toolchain?
> > > > > (otherwise they can't release their own LGPL stuff)
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Niclas
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, John D. Ament <
> > johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > -1 at least I think there's an issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is not
> > > > valid.
> > > > > > There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml.  It
> > > > > confirmed
> > > > > > what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your
> > > required
> > > > > > packages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You require glog [1], which I can't find a license for.  However,
> > > glog
> > > > > > includes [2] which is GPL, which makes glog GPL and as a result,
> > your
> > > > > code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog
> > > > > > [2]: https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/missing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:24 PM Wang Wei 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to
> > release
> > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The vote thread is at:
> > > > > > >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > > > > > > 3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%4
> > > > > > 0mail.gmail.com
> > > > > > > %3E
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and the result is at:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > > > > > 3cCAJz0iLspBOrsCSTaWuraOWwETiDB4cn14ak5SgdYB8umXOJ3Kw@mail.
> > gmail.com
> > > > %3e
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The hashes of the 

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Niclas Hedhman]

https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/COPYING

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:

> Niclas,
>
> So I'll point out a couple of things.
>
> 1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone else (e.g. you) voted a +1
> my -1 would be moot.
>
> 2. I mentioned in my response that the main issue is that I can't find a
> listed license for glog and I was choosing GPL because I found a source
> file with a GPL header.  If the first file I looked at was another license,
> I would have assumed that license.  It has nothing to do with build chain.
> If you have a link that can show that glog is BSD licensed, that would
> settle this.  Note that this issue [1] exists.
>
> John
>
> [1]: https://github.com/google/glog/issues/118
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:04 AM Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
>
> > Sure, but in this case it is;
> >   1. Singa depends on Glog
> >   2. Glog is BSD licensed
> >   3. Glog use a build tool chain that is GPL'd and includes a build
> script
> > to compensate for missing toolchain tools.
> >   4. Singa doesn't use Glog's build toolchain
> >
> > Your (John) argument is that Glog is incorrectly licensed and should have
> > been GPL'd. I think that reasoning is incorrect, and that Glog is
> licensed
> > correctly and hence it is not relevant whether it is optional or not for
> > Singa.
> >
> > Given that we have both belt and suspenders for this, I think the -1 can
> be
> > withdrawn regarding the Glog dependency.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Niclas
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on this
> type
> > of
> > > topic.  Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required dependencies.
> Henri
> > > and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final result.
> > > Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional features.
> > >
> > > We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall into the
> > GPL
> > > bucket though.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG, i.e. the
> > > > equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to the ASF
> > > > software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this and
> may
> > > even
> > > > have checked with their Legal team...
> > > >
> > > > Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me, or
> hasn't
> > > FSF
> > > > stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build
> > toolchain?
> > > > (otherwise they can't release their own LGPL stuff)
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Niclas
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, John D. Ament <
> johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -1 at least I think there's an issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is not
> > > valid.
> > > > > There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml.  It
> > > > confirmed
> > > > > what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your
> > required
> > > > > packages.
> > > > >
> > > > > You require glog [1], which I can't find a license for.  However,
> > glog
> > > > > includes [2] which is GPL, which makes glog GPL and as a result,
> your
> > > > code.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog
> > > > > [2]: https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/missing
> > > > >
> > > > > - John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:24 PM Wang Wei 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to
> release
> > > > > Apache
> > > > > > SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The vote thread is at:
> > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > > > > > 3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%4
> > > > > 0mail.gmail.com
> > > > > > %3E
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and the result is at:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > > > > 3cCAJz0iLspBOrsCSTaWuraOWwETiDB4cn14ak5SgdYB8umXOJ3Kw@mail.
> gmail.com
> > > %3e
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
> > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
> > > > > > MD5:  08 CA 31 10 4E 79 02 16  A1 D7 3F 20 2D 60 21 BB
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > > > > > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and the signature file is:
> > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0
> > > > > > 

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[John D. Ament]

Niclas,

So I'll point out a couple of things.

1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone else (e.g. you) voted a +1
my -1 would be moot.

2. I mentioned in my response that the main issue is that I can't find a
listed license for glog and I was choosing GPL because I found a source
file with a GPL header.  If the first file I looked at was another license,
I would have assumed that license.  It has nothing to do with build chain.
If you have a link that can show that glog is BSD licensed, that would
settle this.  Note that this issue [1] exists.

John

[1]: https://github.com/google/glog/issues/118


On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:04 AM Niclas Hedhman  wrote:

> Sure, but in this case it is;
>   1. Singa depends on Glog
>   2. Glog is BSD licensed
>   3. Glog use a build tool chain that is GPL'd and includes a build script
> to compensate for missing toolchain tools.
>   4. Singa doesn't use Glog's build toolchain
>
> Your (John) argument is that Glog is incorrectly licensed and should have
> been GPL'd. I think that reasoning is incorrect, and that Glog is licensed
> correctly and hence it is not relevant whether it is optional or not for
> Singa.
>
> Given that we have both belt and suspenders for this, I think the -1 can be
> withdrawn regarding the Glog dependency.
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on this type
> of
> > topic.  Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required dependencies.  Henri
> > and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final result.
> > Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional features.
> >
> > We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall into the
> GPL
> > bucket though.
> >
> > John
> >
> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG, i.e. the
> > > equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to the ASF
> > > software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this and may
> > even
> > > have checked with their Legal team...
> > >
> > > Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me, or hasn't
> > FSF
> > > stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build
> toolchain?
> > > (otherwise they can't release their own LGPL stuff)
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Niclas
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, John D. Ament 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > -1 at least I think there's an issue.
> > > >
> > > > While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is not
> > valid.
> > > > There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml.  It
> > > confirmed
> > > > what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your
> required
> > > > packages.
> > > >
> > > > You require glog [1], which I can't find a license for.  However,
> glog
> > > > includes [2] which is GPL, which makes glog GPL and as a result, your
> > > code.
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog
> > > > [2]: https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/missing
> > > >
> > > > - John
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:24 PM Wang Wei  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
> > > > Apache
> > > > > SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating).
> > > > >
> > > > > The vote thread is at:
> > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > > > > 3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%4
> > > > 0mail.gmail.com
> > > > > %3E
> > > > >
> > > > > and the result is at:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > > > 3ccajz0ilspborscstawuraowwetidb4cn14ak5sgdyb8umxoj...@mail.gmail.com
> > %3e
> > > > >
> > > > > We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.
> > > > >
> > > > > The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0/
> > > > >
> > > > > The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
> > > > > MD5:  08 CA 31 10 4E 79 02 16  A1 D7 3F 20 2D 60 21 BB
> > > > >
> > > > > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > > > > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc
> > > > >
> > > > > and the signature file is:
> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0
> > > > > /apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0-RC1.tar.gz.asc
> > > > >
> > > > > The Github tag is at:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/releases/tag/v1.1.0-rc1
> > > > > commit ID is: 59ca44a7ce38ce4f965511c805cda074d0b8e360
> > > > >
> > > > > To check the license, you can use the Apache Rat tool as follows:
> > > > > 1. download & decompress apache rat from
> > > http://creadur.apache.org/rat/
> > > > > download_rat.cgi
> > > 

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Niclas Hedhman]

Sure, but in this case it is;
  1. Singa depends on Glog
  2. Glog is BSD licensed
  3. Glog use a build tool chain that is GPL'd and includes a build script
to compensate for missing toolchain tools.
  4. Singa doesn't use Glog's build toolchain

Your (John) argument is that Glog is incorrectly licensed and should have
been GPL'd. I think that reasoning is incorrect, and that Glog is licensed
correctly and hence it is not relevant whether it is optional or not for
Singa.

Given that we have both belt and suspenders for this, I think the -1 can be
withdrawn regarding the Glog dependency.

Cheers
Niclas

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on this type of
> topic.  Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required dependencies.  Henri
> and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final result.
> Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional features.
>
> We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall into the GPL
> bucket though.
>
> John
>
> [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
>
> > I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG, i.e. the
> > equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to the ASF
> > software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this and may
> even
> > have checked with their Legal team...
> >
> > Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me, or hasn't
> FSF
> > stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build toolchain?
> > (otherwise they can't release their own LGPL stuff)
> >
> > Cheers
> > Niclas
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > -1 at least I think there's an issue.
> > >
> > > While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is not
> valid.
> > > There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml.  It
> > confirmed
> > > what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your required
> > > packages.
> > >
> > > You require glog [1], which I can't find a license for.  However, glog
> > > includes [2] which is GPL, which makes glog GPL and as a result, your
> > code.
> > >
> > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog
> > > [2]: https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/missing
> > >
> > > - John
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:24 PM Wang Wei  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
> > > Apache
> > > > SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating).
> > > >
> > > > The vote thread is at:
> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > > > 3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%4
> > > 0mail.gmail.com
> > > > %3E
> > > >
> > > > and the result is at:
> > > >
> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > > 3ccajz0ilspborscstawuraowwetidb4cn14ak5sgdyb8umxoj...@mail.gmail.com
> %3e
> > > >
> > > > We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.
> > > >
> > > > The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0/
> > > >
> > > > The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
> > > > MD5:  08 CA 31 10 4E 79 02 16  A1 D7 3F 20 2D 60 21 BB
> > > >
> > > > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > > > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc
> > > >
> > > > and the signature file is:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0
> > > > /apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0-RC1.tar.gz.asc
> > > >
> > > > The Github tag is at:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/releases/tag/v1.1.0-rc1
> > > > commit ID is: 59ca44a7ce38ce4f965511c805cda074d0b8e360
> > > >
> > > > To check the license, you can use the Apache Rat tool as follows:
> > > > 1. download & decompress apache rat from
> > http://creadur.apache.org/rat/
> > > > download_rat.cgi
> > > > 2. run the following command under singa folder:
> > > > java -jar /PATH/TO/RAT/apache-rat-0.11.jar -E rat-excludes -d .
> >
> > > > rat_check
> > > > 3. check the results in file named "rat_check"
> > > >
> > > > Please check and vote on releasing this package. The vote is open for
> > at
> > > > least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 votes
> are
> > > > cast.
> > > >
> > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SINGA 1.0.0-incubating
> > > > [ ]  0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Wei
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> > http://polygene.apache.org  - New Energy for
> Java
> >
>



-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://polygene.apache.org  - New Energy for Java

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Wang Wei]

Hi John,

Thank you for checking the license of Glog.
The document building instructions are here
https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/blob/master/doc/README.md
Glog is an optional dependency, which is declared in the installation page
http://singa.apache.org/en/docs/installation.html#from-source.
We would make it more clear in the LICENSE file and remove it from the
travis.yml file.
Can we pass this release considering Glog is an optional dependency?

Regards,
Wei


On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on this type of
> topic.  Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required dependencies.  Henri
> and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final result.
> Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional features.
>
> We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall into the GPL
> bucket though.
>
> John
>
> [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
>
> > I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG, i.e. the
> > equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to the ASF
> > software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this and may
> even
> > have checked with their Legal team...
> >
> > Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me, or hasn't
> FSF
> > stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build toolchain?
> > (otherwise they can't release their own LGPL stuff)
> >
> > Cheers
> > Niclas
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > -1 at least I think there's an issue.
> > >
> > > While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is not
> valid.
> > > There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml.  It
> > confirmed
> > > what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your required
> > > packages.
> > >
> > > You require glog [1], which I can't find a license for.  However, glog
> > > includes [2] which is GPL, which makes glog GPL and as a result, your
> > code.
> > >
> > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog
> > > [2]: https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/missing
> > >
> > > - John
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:24 PM Wang Wei  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
> > > Apache
> > > > SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating).
> > > >
> > > > The vote thread is at:
> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > > > 3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%4
> > > 0mail.gmail.com
> > > > %3E
> > > >
> > > > and the result is at:
> > > >
> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > > 3ccajz0ilspborscstawuraowwetidb4cn14ak5sgdyb8umxoj...@mail.gmail.com
> %3e
> > > >
> > > > We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.
> > > >
> > > > The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0/
> > > >
> > > > The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
> > > > MD5:  08 CA 31 10 4E 79 02 16  A1 D7 3F 20 2D 60 21 BB
> > > >
> > > > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > > > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc
> > > >
> > > > and the signature file is:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0
> > > > /apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0-RC1.tar.gz.asc
> > > >
> > > > The Github tag is at:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/releases/tag/v1.1.0-rc1
> > > > commit ID is: 59ca44a7ce38ce4f965511c805cda074d0b8e360
> > > >
> > > > To check the license, you can use the Apache Rat tool as follows:
> > > > 1. download & decompress apache rat from
> > http://creadur.apache.org/rat/
> > > > download_rat.cgi
> > > > 2. run the following command under singa folder:
> > > > java -jar /PATH/TO/RAT/apache-rat-0.11.jar -E rat-excludes -d .
> >
> > > > rat_check
> > > > 3. check the results in file named "rat_check"
> > > >
> > > > Please check and vote on releasing this package. The vote is open for
> > at
> > > > least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 votes
> are
> > > > cast.
> > > >
> > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SINGA 1.0.0-incubating
> > > > [ ]  0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Wei
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> > http://polygene.apache.org  - New Energy for
> Java
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[John D. Ament]

We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on this type of
topic.  Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required dependencies.  Henri
and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final result.
Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional features.

We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall into the GPL
bucket though.

John

[1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman  wrote:

> I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG, i.e. the
> equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to the ASF
> software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this and may even
> have checked with their Legal team...
>
> Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me, or hasn't FSF
> stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build toolchain?
> (otherwise they can't release their own LGPL stuff)
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > -1 at least I think there's an issue.
> >
> > While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is not valid.
> > There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml.  It
> confirmed
> > what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your required
> > packages.
> >
> > You require glog [1], which I can't find a license for.  However, glog
> > includes [2] which is GPL, which makes glog GPL and as a result, your
> code.
> >
> > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog
> > [2]: https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/missing
> >
> > - John
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:24 PM Wang Wei  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
> > Apache
> > > SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating).
> > >
> > > The vote thread is at:
> > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > > 3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%4
> > 0mail.gmail.com
> > > %3E
> > >
> > > and the result is at:
> > >
> > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > 3ccajz0ilspborscstawuraowwetidb4cn14ak5sgdyb8umxoj...@mail.gmail.com%3e
> > >
> > > We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.
> > >
> > > The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0/
> > >
> > > The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
> > > MD5:  08 CA 31 10 4E 79 02 16  A1 D7 3F 20 2D 60 21 BB
> > >
> > > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc
> > >
> > > and the signature file is:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0
> > > /apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0-RC1.tar.gz.asc
> > >
> > > The Github tag is at:
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/releases/tag/v1.1.0-rc1
> > > commit ID is: 59ca44a7ce38ce4f965511c805cda074d0b8e360
> > >
> > > To check the license, you can use the Apache Rat tool as follows:
> > > 1. download & decompress apache rat from
> http://creadur.apache.org/rat/
> > > download_rat.cgi
> > > 2. run the following command under singa folder:
> > > java -jar /PATH/TO/RAT/apache-rat-0.11.jar -E rat-excludes -d . >
> > > rat_check
> > > 3. check the results in file named "rat_check"
> > >
> > > Please check and vote on releasing this package. The vote is open for
> at
> > > least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 votes are
> > > cast.
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SINGA 1.0.0-incubating
> > > [ ]  0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Wei
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://polygene.apache.org  - New Energy for Java
>

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Niclas Hedhman]

I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG, i.e. the
equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to the ASF
software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this and may even
have checked with their Legal team...

Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me, or hasn't FSF
stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build toolchain?
(otherwise they can't release their own LGPL stuff)

Cheers
Niclas

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> -1 at least I think there's an issue.
>
> While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is not valid.
> There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml.  It confirmed
> what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your required
> packages.
>
> You require glog [1], which I can't find a license for.  However, glog
> includes [2] which is GPL, which makes glog GPL and as a result, your code.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/google/glog
> [2]: https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/missing
>
> - John
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:24 PM Wang Wei  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
> Apache
> > SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating).
> >
> > The vote thread is at:
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> > 3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%4
> 0mail.gmail.com
> > %3E
> >
> > and the result is at:
> >
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> 3ccajz0ilspborscstawuraowwetidb4cn14ak5sgdyb8umxoj...@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >
> > We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.
> >
> > The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0/
> >
> > The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
> > MD5:  08 CA 31 10 4E 79 02 16  A1 D7 3F 20 2D 60 21 BB
> >
> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc
> >
> > and the signature file is:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0
> > /apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0-RC1.tar.gz.asc
> >
> > The Github tag is at:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/releases/tag/v1.1.0-rc1
> > commit ID is: 59ca44a7ce38ce4f965511c805cda074d0b8e360
> >
> > To check the license, you can use the Apache Rat tool as follows:
> > 1. download & decompress apache rat from http://creadur.apache.org/rat/
> > download_rat.cgi
> > 2. run the following command under singa folder:
> > java -jar /PATH/TO/RAT/apache-rat-0.11.jar -E rat-excludes -d . >
> > rat_check
> > 3. check the results in file named "rat_check"
> >
> > Please check and vote on releasing this package. The vote is open for at
> > least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 votes are
> > cast.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SINGA 1.0.0-incubating
> > [ ]  0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >
> > Best,
> > Wei
> >
>



-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://polygene.apache.org  - New Energy for Java

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[John D. Ament]

-1 at least I think there's an issue.

While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is not valid.
There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml.  It confirmed
what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your required
packages.

You require glog [1], which I can't find a license for.  However, glog
includes [2] which is GPL, which makes glog GPL and as a result, your code.

[1]: https://github.com/google/glog
[2]: https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/missing

- John

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:24 PM Wang Wei  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache
> SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating).
>
> The vote thread is at:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> 3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%40mail.gmail.com
> %3E
>
> and the result is at:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%3ccajz0ilspborscstawuraowwetidb4cn14ak5sgdyb8umxoj...@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
> We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.
>
> The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0/
>
> The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
> MD5:  08 CA 31 10 4E 79 02 16  A1 D7 3F 20 2D 60 21 BB
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc
>
> and the signature file is:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0
> /apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0-RC1.tar.gz.asc
>
> The Github tag is at:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/releases/tag/v1.1.0-rc1
> commit ID is: 59ca44a7ce38ce4f965511c805cda074d0b8e360
>
> To check the license, you can use the Apache Rat tool as follows:
> 1. download & decompress apache rat from http://creadur.apache.org/rat/
> download_rat.cgi
> 2. run the following command under singa folder:
> java -jar /PATH/TO/RAT/apache-rat-0.11.jar -E rat-excludes -d . >
> rat_check
> 3. check the results in file named "rat_check"
>
> Please check and vote on releasing this package. The vote is open for at
> least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 votes are
> cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SINGA 1.0.0-incubating
> [ ]  0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> Best,
> Wei
>

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

+1 binding

I checked:
- name contains incubating
- signatures and hashes good (you might consider using something other than md5 
for the hash)
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE good
- All source files have ASF headers
- No unexpected binary files
- Can't compile from source but likely my setup

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Anh Dinh]

+1 (non-binding)

I've checked:
LICENSE file
no binaries
hash and signature correct

Would appreciate PMC members to help check and cast their votes.

Anh.


On 30 January 2017 at 09:24, Wang Wei  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache
> SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating).
>
> The vote thread is at:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> 3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%40mail.gmail.com
> %3E
>
> and the result is at:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
> 3ccajz0ilspborscstawuraowwetidb4cn14ak5sgdyb8umxoj...@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
> We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.
>
> The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0/
>
> The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
> MD5:  08 CA 31 10 4E 79 02 16  A1 D7 3F 20 2D 60 21 BB
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc
>
> and the signature file is:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0
> /apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0-RC1.tar.gz.asc
>
> The Github tag is at:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/releases/tag/v1.1.0-rc1
> commit ID is: 59ca44a7ce38ce4f965511c805cda074d0b8e360
>
> To check the license, you can use the Apache Rat tool as follows:
> 1. download & decompress apache rat from http://creadur.apache.org/rat/
> download_rat.cgi
> 2. run the following command under singa folder:
> java -jar /PATH/TO/RAT/apache-rat-0.11.jar -E rat-excludes -d . >
> rat_check
> 3. check the results in file named "rat_check"
>
> Please check and vote on releasing this package. The vote is open for at
> least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 votes are
> cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SINGA 1.0.0-incubating
> [ ]  0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> Best,
> Wei
>

[VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

[Wang Wei]

Hi all,

The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache
SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating).

The vote thread is at:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%
3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%40mail.gmail.com
%3E

and the result is at:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/%3ccajz0ilspborscstawuraowwetidb4cn14ak5sgdyb8umxoj...@mail.gmail.com%3e

We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.

The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0/

The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
MD5:  08 CA 31 10 4E 79 02 16  A1 D7 3F 20 2D 60 21 BB

Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc

and the signature file is:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0
/apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0-RC1.tar.gz.asc

The Github tag is at:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/releases/tag/v1.1.0-rc1
commit ID is: 59ca44a7ce38ce4f965511c805cda074d0b8e360

To check the license, you can use the Apache Rat tool as follows:
1. download & decompress apache rat from http://creadur.apache.org/rat/
download_rat.cgi
2. run the following command under singa folder:
java -jar /PATH/TO/RAT/apache-rat-0.11.jar -E rat-excludes -d . >
rat_check
3. check the results in file named "rat_check"

Please check and vote on releasing this package. The vote is open for at
least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 votes are cast.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SINGA 1.0.0-incubating
[ ]  0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

Best,
Wei