On 04/06/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Sorry for the delay in responding.
The NOTICE file is much clearer, and the Xerox license is identified,
so I am withdrawing my -1.
When the rules have been clarified, the next release can implement any
changes if necessary.
Could you create an example on how you would consider the structure and
content as acceptable so that we can understand what you want to have?
Thanks
Henning
sebb schrieb:
On 04/06/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Sorry for the delay in
On 05/06/07, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you create an example on how you would consider the structure and
content as acceptable so that we can understand what you want to have?
Thanks
Henning
I thought I already had done so:
On 27/05/07, sebb
If you vote again your vote is binding too :)
Mvgr,
Martin
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
sebb wrote:
However:
http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
says much the same, and seems to be policy.
As you can see from the SVN tag JCS_1_3 and the artifacts at my site,
your
On 04/06/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
Hi
sebb wrote:
However:
http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
says much the same, and seems to be policy.
As you can see from the SVN tag JCS_1_3 and the artifacts at my site,
your concerns have been addressed and
sebb wrote:
Sorry for the delay in responding.
The NOTICE file is much clearer, and the Xerox license is identified,
so I am withdrawing my -1.
When the rules have been clarified, the next release can implement any
changes if necessary.
Sebastian
Thanks, I will clarify the result now,
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
If you vote again your vote is binding too :)
Next time. Thanks again for voting me in.
Bye, Thomas.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
Actually, it's more than that. But so be it. I will update the files on
my site and kindly ask for a re-vote.
Done. I chose the separate LICENSE file. The maven2-POM is also part of
the distribution.
Bye, Thomas.
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
Actually, it's more than that. But so be it. I will update the files on
my site and kindly ask for a re-vote.
Done. I chose the separate LICENSE file. The maven2-POM is also part of
the distribution.
The maven2 pom is what I was holding
sebb wrote:
I find the current NOTICE rather misleading - it looks as though the
whole of JCS is licensed under a Xerox licence.
I think it's therefore important to fix this.
From re-reading the NOTICE file, I agree with you. My proposal to solve
this is the following:
---8---
Apache
On 30/05/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
I find the current NOTICE rather misleading - it looks as though the
whole of JCS is licensed under a Xerox licence.
I think it's therefore important to fix this.
From re-reading the NOTICE file, I agree with you. My proposal
sebb wrote:
The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
I beg to differ, but I will not go into this again.
I suggest you remove the Xerox license header from it, and add it to
the LICENSE file, with the appropriate introduction.
The LICENSE.txt file is supposed to contain the ASL
On 30/05/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
I beg to differ, but I will not go into this again.
I suggest you remove the Xerox license header from it, and add it to
the LICENSE file, with the appropriate
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 19:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
What makes you think so? I am still a bit stumped that you so strongly
insist on this. Is there any reference (besides the cited httpd project)
to that?
Best regards
On 5/30/07, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 19:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
What makes you think so? I am still a bit stumped that you so strongly
insist on this. Is there any reference (besides the cited
Yep, I know this.
Status
Version: 0.52
Effective Date. N/A (proposed)
== non binding.
If it were in effect, then yes, the paragraph
--- cut ---
* Reciprocity
Required by some Components: Some included third-party works are
licensed under terms that require distribution of
On 30/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, I know this.
Status
Version: 0.52
Effective Date. N/A (proposed)
== non binding.
However:
http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
says much the same, and seems to be policy.
Full license text should go in LICENSE and attributions and notices in NOTICE..
Mvgr,
Martin
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
Well, I understand it differently and Thomas (probably looking at other
projects) did this too:
- LICENSE.txt contains the terms under which the software is licensed.
Hi,
uhm, this is as ambiguous as before. Do you consider third-party license
a notice (the foo library is distributed under the foo license as shown
here) or a license in its own right and you would put in into LICENSE.
According to http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new, the LICENSE
file
On 29/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
uhm, this is as ambiguous as before. Do you consider third-party license
a notice (the foo library is distributed under the foo license as shown
here) or a license in its own right and you would put in into LICENSE.
According to
Well, I understand it differently and Thomas (probably looking at other
projects) did this too:
- LICENSE.txt contains the terms under which the software is licensed.
This is Apache License 2.0
- NOTICE contains attributions to included code and the licenses that
it is included under. Some
sebb wrote:
I don't think so. The NOTICE is not supposed to contain the license.
It doesn't. It contains what I understand as license header of that
one Xerox file and the associated copyright notice.
Bye, Thomas.
-
To
All I have is the minor nit that a default target is missing and an
empty aspectSourceDirectory which prevents using maven 1.1 for building.
+1 for the release! Thanks to all who participated!
Best regards
Henning
Thomas Vandahl schrieb:
Hi folks,
After much
On 27/05/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
I don't think so. The NOTICE is not supposed to contain the license.
It doesn't. It contains what I understand as license header of that
one Xerox file and the associated copyright notice.
Sorry to keep going on about this,
The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
LICENSE.txt.
Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
got licensed to us is in NOTICE.
Thomas did the right thing.
Best regards
Henning
sebb schrieb:
On 27/05/07,
On 27/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
LICENSE.txt.
Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
got licensed to us is in NOTICE.
Are you sure?
That does not seem to agree
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
Now, shall we release JCS as it is published there?
[X] +1 Yes, JCS 1.3 should be released
[ ] 0 I do not care
[ ] -1 No (give reasons)
Bye, Thomas.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
Sorry, but: -1
There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not find it in SVN.
Sourcefiles:
There should probably be AL2.0 headers in
sebb wrote:
Sorry, but: -1
There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not find it in SVN.
Sourcefiles:
There should probably
On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Sorry, but: -1
There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not
sebb wrote:
On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Project Team: both tv and jvanzyl are committers
Actually my contributions are very small, so I'm fine with the
contributor status.
But you _are_ still a committer...
Surely it is up to Thomas to decide how he
sebb wrote:
But you _are_ still a committer...
Yes, but then, everybody else in Jakarta is also potentially a committer
for JCS and we would not want to list them all.
By, Thomas.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 26/05/07, Scott Eade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Project Team: both tv and jvanzyl are committers
Actually my contributions are very small, so I'm fine with the
contributor status.
But you _are_ still a
sebb wrote:
Sorry, but: -1
There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not find it in SVN.
Sourcefiles:
There should probably
On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Sorry, but: -1
There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not
35 matches
Mail list logo
