On 13 Feb 2012, at 13:39, Ate Douma wrote: > On 02/13/2012 01:52 PM, Paul Sharples wrote: >> On 10/02/2012 12:51, Scott Wilson wrote: >>> On 10 Feb 2012, at 12:44, Ate Douma wrote: >>> >>>> On 02/10/2012 01:18 PM, Ate Douma wrote: >>>>> On 02/10/2012 11:04 AM, Paul Sharples wrote: >>>>>> On 09/02/2012 11:51, Ate Douma wrote: >>>>>>> I'm trying to review the current wookie trunk on LICENSE and NOTICE >>>>>>> requirements for the next release. >>>>>> All Jira issues are now dealt with and the Rat report now looks ok. >>>>>> Do we need more time for reviewing or are we ready to cut a release? >>>>> I'd like to give it one more thorough review, which I'll try to finish >>>>> before >>>>> end of this working day. >>>> I found the following remaining issues with the NOTICE and LICENSE files in >>>> standalone and war distributions: >>>> >>>> - both bundle openjpa, which has several/additional NOTICE and LICENSE >>>> attributions which should be merged >>>> - standalone in addition bundles derby which also adds to the NOTICE and >>>> LICENSE requirements >>>> >>>> So, for both openjpa and derby, check their embedded NOTICE/LICENSE files. >>> I'll get onto that now. >> >> (a) Scott has updated both the standalone and war versions of NOTICE. Does >> anything need to be added to each of the LICENSE files, or are they okay? > > Yes, the openjpa-all jar embedded LICENSE has several additional licenses > which need to be merged with the LICENSE file for the war & standalone. > For derby there are no additional LICENSE requirements, just the NOTICEs > Scott already added.
Done > > With respect to the added notices: I see Scott more or less 'verbatim' > appended those from the openjpa-all and derby jars. > > As result, there now are some duplications in the resulting NOTICE, like > "This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation > (http://www.apache.org/)" is now repeated 3x. > > In addition, the start section of the notice for OpenJPA (which is a ASF > project) lists several other ASF projects being used. Those are not needed as > we're all ASF here, and the notice at the top of the file already covers > everything from the ASF itself. > And it list the SERP project too in this section, but for SERP there already > is a specific notice provided separately thereafter, so isn't needed in this > section as well. > > My suggestion therefore is to remove this first section for the OpenJPA. Done > > Once the above is cleared up, AFAIK the NOTICE and LICENSE requirements > should be covered. Yay! > > Ate > >> >>> >>>> I also noticed the RELEASE_NOTES document hasn't been updated to include >>>> the >>>> 0.9.2 issues fixed. As that list isn't complete either this task probably >>>> should be done when everything else is ready. >>> Yep, I'll create a task in Jira so we don't forget >> >> (b) Now done >> >>>> Other than these last things, and the wrapping up of WOOKIE-314, IMO this >>>> candidate is ready for release! >> >> If point (A) above is now okay, then I think we are ready. >> >> Paul >> >>>> >>>> Regards, Ate >>>> >>>>> Ate >>>>> >>>>> p.s. I suggest someone adds the /release folder to svn:ignore. >>>>> It now shows up as a svn modification. >>>>> >>>>>> Paul >>>>>> >>>>>>> First question I have is: how do I 'build' a release binary? >>>>>>> From ant -p I don't see a build target which should do that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To be able to properly review what will end up in the binary release, I >>>>>>> need >>>>>>> to be able to build that myself, or have to wait until a candidate is >>>>>>> prepared >>>>>>> by others. I'd like to do it myself :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would also be nice if a release-management kind of documentation >>>>>>> could be >>>>>>> published on the website, kind of similar to what we have for Rave [1]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a start I looked briefly at the root NOTICE file which raises a few >>>>>>> suggestions and questions already: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Bubbles.wgt notice >>>>>>> I looked the provided url up but couldn't find any license or notice >>>>>>> whatsoever for inclusion/usage of this widget, and neither does the >>>>>>> .wgt has >>>>>>> anything embedded. Where did this *required* notice come from (note: >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> *required* notices should be added to the NOTICE file) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - many/most of the other notices seems to be for MIT/BSD licensed stuff >>>>>>> Those should not need notices, unless (extra) explicitly required and/or >>>>>>> coming with a NOTICE (file) of their own. In general, if for these >>>>>>> products >>>>>>> their license (with copyright statement) is included in our LICENSE >>>>>>> file, >>>>>>> there is no need to also add a notice in the NOTICE file. AFAIK the >>>>>>> /LICENSE >>>>>>> file already takes care of that properly, +1 on that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In general, the NOTICE file should not be used for providing friendly >>>>>>> credits. >>>>>>> This file has a legal purpose only. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we want to give friendly but non-required credits, the README file >>>>>>> can/should be used for that instead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anything we add to our NOTICE (required or not) we force upon our >>>>>>> downstream >>>>>>> users to keep as specified by our AS 2.0 license section 4d. >>>>>>> This is why more recently there is more attention for making sure we >>>>>>> only put >>>>>>> really required entries in the NOTICE file, to lessen the burden for our >>>>>>> downstream users. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ate >>>>>>> >>> >> >
