Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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. Sebastian Thanks, I will clarify the result now, based on your +1 I suppose? Sorry, I should have been clearer. I have withdrawn the -1. That does not mean I am now totally in favour. I'm not convinced that the files are quite right yet, so I am now abstaining. Bye, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 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, based on your +1 I suppose? Sorry, I should have been clearer. I have withdrawn the -1. That does not mean I am now totally in favour. I'm not convinced that the files are quite right yet, so I am now abstaining. Bye, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine Save the cheerleader. Save the world. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 with the sample NOTICE file: http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and LICENSE files: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/ As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions. The LICENSE file is for licenses. These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced from the main LICENSE file. S/// - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 concerns have been addressed and the license files have been fixed. I would like to ask you to be so kind as to re-vote on the subject, based on the new status. Regards, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 the license files have been fixed. I would like to ask you to be so kind as to re-vote on the subject, based on the new status. 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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, based on your +1 I suppose? Bye, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 out for and I believe the license issue has been dealt with correctly. So... +1 for the release from me. Scott - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 Jakarta JCS Copyright 2001-2007 The Apache Software Foundation. Portions Copyright (c) Xerox Corporation 1998-2001. This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). This product includes software developed at Xerox Corporation which has been published under the following license: --- Copyright (c) Xerox Corporation 1998-2001. All rights reserved. Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works based upon this software are permitted. Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply with all applicable United States export control laws. This software is made available AS IS, and Xerox Corporation makes no warranty about the software, its performance or its conformity to any specification. --- ---8--- Could we agree on this version? Bye, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 to solve this is the following: ---8--- Apache Jakarta JCS Copyright 2001-2007 The Apache Software Foundation. Portions Copyright (c) Xerox Corporation 1998-2001. This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). This product includes software developed at Xerox Corporation which has been published under the following license: --- Copyright (c) Xerox Corporation 1998-2001. All rights reserved. Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works based upon this software are permitted. Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply with all applicable United States export control laws. This software is made available AS IS, and Xerox Corporation makes no warranty about the software, its performance or its conformity to any specification. --- ---8--- Could we agree on this version? The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses. I suggest you remove the Xerox license header from it, and add it to the LICENSE file, with the appropriate introduction. Sorry to keep going on about this, but there's only one other file to edit. Bye, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 2.0 and nothing else. I created another file LICENSE.xerox and refer to it from the NOTICE file. Sorry to keep going on about this, but there's only one other file to edit. 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. Bye, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 introduction. The LICENSE.txt file is supposed to contain the ASL 2.0 and nothing else. I don't think that is correct. The reference to copying the AL 2.0 file to the LICENSE file in http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new relates to creating the initial LICENSE file - it does not say that the LICENSE file cannot contain anything else. I created another file LICENSE.xerox and refer to it from the NOTICE file. It needs either to be referenced in or actually in the LICENSE file. Sorry to keep going on about this, but there's only one other file to edit. Actually, it's more than that. Not necessarily. It's your choice as to whether to append the Xerox license to the LICENSE file or put it in a separate file and edit LICENSE to refer to it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 Henning -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux, |gls 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc |m k INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 httpd project) to that? For a long time I thought LICENSE was for the license only and everything else went in NOTICE. Discussions with Cliff, and I'm pretty sure watching other discussions on legal-discuss, made it clear that license-things go in LICENSE, and copyright/ip things go in NOTICE. Look at the two places in http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html where it mentions LICENSE, both imply that the LICENSE file is the only place to find licensing terms. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 derivative works to be made available under the same license as the original work. See the Apache product's LICENSE file to find the applicable third-party licenses. --- cut --- would make it clear. But it is no official Apache policy. And in lieu of policy, none of us can say that the way Thomas compiled LICENSE and NOTICE is wrong. Because there is no official policy. *Sigh*, it seems that I finally have to subscribe to legal-discuss. :-( Best regards Henning On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 12:35 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote: 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 httpd project) to that? For a long time I thought LICENSE was for the license only and everything else went in NOTICE. Discussions with Cliff, and I'm pretty sure watching other discussions on legal-discuss, made it clear that license-things go in LICENSE, and copyright/ip things go in NOTICE. Look at the two places in http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html where it mentions LICENSE, both imply that the LICENSE file is the only place to find licensing terms. Hen -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux, |gls 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc |m k INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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. This is Apache License 2.0 - NOTICE contains attributions to included code and the licenses that it is included under. Some projects choose to reference foo.LICENSE files for foo. Some choose to put the appropriate licensess into the NOTICE file. Yet others put these (third party) licenses into the LICENSE file. All of the above are ok IMHO. I personally have a preference for the first variant. httpd uses the second. I think FOP uses the third. Best regards Henning On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:24 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote: On 5/27/07, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 with the sample NOTICE file: http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and LICENSE files: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/ As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions. The LICENSE file is for licenses. These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced from the main LICENSE file. That's how I understand it too. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 is a copy of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt And is that *really* important? Best regards Henning Martin van den Bemt schrieb: 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. This is Apache License 2.0 - NOTICE contains attributions to included code and the licenses that it is included under. Some projects choose to reference foo.LICENSE files for foo. Some choose to put the appropriate licensess into the NOTICE file. Yet others put these (third party) licenses into the LICENSE file. All of the above are ok IMHO. I personally have a preference for the first variant. httpd uses the second. I think FOP uses the third. Best regards Henning On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:24 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote: On 5/27/07, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 with the sample NOTICE file: http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and LICENSE files: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/ As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions. The LICENSE file is for licenses. These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced from the main LICENSE file. That's how I understand it too. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine Save the cheerleader. Save the world. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new, the LICENSE file is a copy of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt And is that *really* important? 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. Best regards Henning Martin van den Bemt schrieb: 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. This is Apache License 2.0 - NOTICE contains attributions to included code and the licenses that it is included under. Some projects choose to reference foo.LICENSE files for foo. Some choose to put the appropriate licensess into the NOTICE file. Yet others put these (third party) licenses into the LICENSE file. All of the above are ok IMHO. I personally have a preference for the first variant. httpd uses the second. I think FOP uses the third. Best regards Henning On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:24 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote: On 5/27/07, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 with the sample NOTICE file: http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and LICENSE files: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/ As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions. The LICENSE file is for licenses. These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced from the main LICENSE file. That's how I understand it too. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine Save the cheerleader. Save the world. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 projects choose to reference foo.LICENSE files for foo. Some choose to put the appropriate licensess into the NOTICE file. Yet others put these (third party) licenses into the LICENSE file. All of the above are ok IMHO. I personally have a preference for the first variant. httpd uses the second. I think FOP uses the third. Best regards Henning On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:24 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote: On 5/27/07, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 with the sample NOTICE file: http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and LICENSE files: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/ As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions. The LICENSE file is for licenses. These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced from the main LICENSE file. That's how I understand it too. Hen -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux, |gls 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc |m k INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 discussion on the JCS developer list, the first official release of JCS (version 1.3) after leaving the Turbine project is ready to vote on. You can find the created artifacts here: site: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/ jars: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/jar/ dist: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/dist/ Now, shall we release JCS as it is published there? [ ] +1 Yes, JCS 1.3 should be released [ ] 0 I do not care [ ] -1 No (give reasons) Voting is subject to the rules described in http://jakarta.apache.org/site/management.html The deadline is Sat, June 1 2007, 12:00 CET Note that the Jakarta PMC has the final word on whether the release is published or not. Bye, Thomas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine Save the cheerleader. Save the world. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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, but I think it is important. At the moment the Xerox license header makes it look as though the software is being released under a Xerox license. That is confusing. If you don't want to add the Xerox header to LICENSE.txt, it can be put in a separate file which is referenced from NOTICE. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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, 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, but I think it is important. At the moment the Xerox license header makes it look as though the software is being released under a Xerox license. That is confusing. If you don't want to add the Xerox header to LICENSE.txt, it can be put in a separate file which is referenced from NOTICE. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine Save the cheerleader. Save the world. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 with the sample NOTICE file: http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and LICENSE files: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/ As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions. The LICENSE file is for licenses. These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced from the main LICENSE file. S/// - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 the .aj files (apart from Trace.aj) -0 Other problems: Website: The Changes report refers to CVS - this should really be SVN The JCoverage report should really open in a new window, as is done for Javadocs etc. The Checkstyle report is in German, ideally it should be in English. Project Team: both tv and jvanzyl are committers Sebb AT AO On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, After much discussion on the JCS developer list, the first official release of JCS (version 1.3) after leaving the Turbine project is ready to vote on. You can find the created artifacts here: site: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/ jars: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/jar/ dist: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/dist/ Now, shall we release JCS as it is published there? [ ] +1 Yes, JCS 1.3 should be released [ ] 0 I do not care [ ] -1 No (give reasons) Voting is subject to the rules described in http://jakarta.apache.org/site/management.html The deadline is Sat, June 1 2007, 12:00 CET Note that the Jakarta PMC has the final word on whether the release is published or not. Bye, Thomas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 be AL2.0 headers in the .aj files (apart from Trace.aj) One should not do those things in a hurry. Sorry for this. I will rebuild the stuff and upload it again. -0 Other problems: Website: The Changes report refers to CVS - this should really be SVN Changed. The JCoverage report should really open in a new window, as is done for Javadocs etc. This is standard Maven stuff. How would you change that? The Checkstyle report is in German, ideally it should be in English. Fixed. Project Team: both tv and jvanzyl are committers Actually my contributions are very small, so I'm fine with the contributor status. Bye, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 find it in SVN. Sourcefiles: There should probably be AL2.0 headers in the .aj files (apart from Trace.aj) One should not do those things in a hurry. Sorry for this. I will rebuild the stuff and upload it again. -0 Other problems: Website: The Changes report refers to CVS - this should really be SVN Changed. The JCoverage report should really open in a new window, as is done for Javadocs etc. This is standard Maven stuff. How would you change that? Sorry, no idea. The Checkstyle report is in German, ideally it should be in English. Fixed. 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... Also what about jvanzyl? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 wants to be listed? Also what about jvanzyl? So as a committer Jason is welcome to make this change. I don't see this as the responsibility of the release manager. Scott - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 committer... Surely it is up to Thomas to decide how he wants to be listed? Also what about jvanzyl? So as a committer Jason is welcome to make this change. I don't see this as the responsibility of the release manager. OK, fine. The page does not entirely agree with the SVN history; it was not clear if that was deliberate or accidental. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 be AL2.0 headers in the .aj files (apart from Trace.aj) -0 Other problems: Website: The Changes report refers to CVS - this should really be SVN The JCoverage report should really open in a new window, as is done for Javadocs etc. The Checkstyle report is in German, ideally it should be in English. All complaints have been fixed. The new versions are online. I beg for pardon again. I uploaded a copy of the KEYS file to both, the jar and the dist directory for your convenience. I'm not sure how to handle the Xerox copyright stuff. I included the whole text inside the NOTICE file for now. Don't know if that is appropriate. Would you please be so kind as to review again and vote again. Bye, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
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 find it in SVN. Sourcefiles: There should probably be AL2.0 headers in the .aj files (apart from Trace.aj) -0 Other problems: Website: The Changes report refers to CVS - this should really be SVN The JCoverage report should really open in a new window, as is done for Javadocs etc. The Checkstyle report is in German, ideally it should be in English. All complaints have been fixed. The new versions are online. I beg for pardon again. I uploaded a copy of the KEYS file to both, the jar and the dist directory for your convenience. I'm not sure how to handle the Xerox copyright stuff. I included the whole text inside the NOTICE file for now. Don't know if that is appropriate. I don't think so. The NOTICE is not supposed to contain the license. See: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/ for an example. Would you please be so kind as to review again and vote again. Bye, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
