On 02/14/2012 06:55 PM, Paul Sharples wrote:
On 14/02/2012 16:55, Scott Wilson wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 14:40, Paul Sharples wrote:
On 13/02/2012 18:09, Paul Sharples wrote:
I'll assume lazy consensus and make the artifacts tomorrow. (unless someone
finds an issue before then)
Paul
I've found a licence issue while making the maven war artifact. As you know
we make a war release using our 'ant build-release-war' task. This artifact
is then usually located up at the normal apache download area.
(http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/wookie/version/binary/war) This
artifact is aimed at a typical mysql/tomcat configuration and assumes that
the user will deploy the war in that kind of setup. As far as I can tell, the
NOTICE file is okay for this.
However, the *new* maven war artifact we make is slightly different in that
it is intended to be self contained and as such uses an embedded derby db
(the maven artifact contains a 'derby-10.4.2.0.jar' file, while the other war
distro does not) While reviewing the NOTICE file for this artifact I see that
the reference to derby (as found in the standalone NOTICE file) is not present.
i.e the following text...
This software contains unmodified binary redistributions of software (Derby)
developed by
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/):
==============================================================
Apache Derby
Copyright 2004-2008 The Apache Software Foundation
==============================================================
Portions of Derby were originally developed by
International Business Machines Corporation and are
licensed to the Apache Software Foundation under the
"Software Grant and Corporate Contribution License Agreement",
informally known as the "Derby CLA".
The following copyright notice(s) were affixed to portions of the code
with which this file is now or was at one time distributed
and are placed here unaltered.
(C) Copyright 1997,2004 International Business Machines Corporation. All
rights reserved.
(C) Copyright IBM Corp. 2003.
The portion of the functionTests under 'nist' was originally
developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, and adapted by
International Business Machines Corporation in accordance with the NIST
Software Acknowledgment and Redistribution document at
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/ctg/sql_form.htm
I can quite easily add that text to the maven war artifact LICENSE before
uploading to the staging area, but then the tagged '0.9.2-incubating'
etc/release/war/LICENSE would be slightly different from the one found in the
maven war build.
And it should be different: these artifacts are different.
The question is: should they be different?
I think it is rather confusing to have two different wookie.war distributions,
one with an embedded derby and another without (but configured for mysql).
For the next release we should think out a better and easier to manage way of
setting up the database configuration such that there only is a single/standard
war artifact needed.
I think you meant NOTICE? There is no additional LICENSE requirement for Derby.
Oops, Yes i did mean NOTICE, i started the email by referencing the correct
NOTICE file and then for some reason swapped to referring to it as LICENSE, my
bad.
As it only affects one of the binary releases and not the source release, I
would have thought we could get away with fixing this in the release artifact
rather than starting another tag?
Patching the maven war artifact with an updated NOTICE file, although not
'pretty' IMO should be acceptable, in this case and certainly for this release.
For the next release it would be better to have this 'fixed' though. Less
chances of mistakes.
For me its a trivial change, I but wanted to check with other IPMC members that
it would be ok to do this. (I'd rather get this clear than risk people voting -1
to the whole thing when we start the vote)
I'm OK with it.
*If* we can't change this now, does this mean we should drop the maven WAR
artifact for this release? (this doesn't affect anything else)
If we couldn't get away with it (but I think we can), then instead I would have
suggested to just drop the tag, fix it in trunk and then recreate the tag.
As long as there hasn't been send out an official VOTE thread, this 'trick' is
applied by other projects as well, especially by incubator projects still
learning to 'get it right'. So this I have no problem with to endorse.
Maybe not very clean, but OK.
Once a VOTE has been send out though, I personally don't like to 'reuse' that
same tag again and would prefer bumping to the next version instead.
But to be honest, there are others (within the ASF) who think differently, and
there is no absolute or formal rule on this.
Its up to the PMC (this PMC) to decide itself what rules it should follow.
You could even argue that in the VOTE thread you'd also need to specify the
exact SVN revision number for the tag VOTEd upon. And actually some projects do.
Ate
Paul
P.S The other builds are up at:
http://people.apache.org/~psharples/wookie/staging-area/0.9.2-incubating/ if
you want to check them out before I start the vote.
