+1.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Buffone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote > > New distributions files have been uploaded to my apache's people > directory. The only changes are related to the NOTICE.txt and the > LICENSE.txt files to better comply with the MPL licensing issues. > > Please look it over and vote if you haven't; voting closes tomorrow. > > Thanks, > > Bob (Buffone) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote > > On 2/8/07, Bob Buffone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cliff, > > > > This is what I am thinking of putting into the NOTICE.txt file to > > document the inclusion better. > > > > -------------------------------- > > In accordance with provision 3.2. Availability of Source Code of the > MPL > > 1.1 > > License, the source for the custom_rhino.jar is supplied in this > > distribution > > as a svn diff located at: > > [INSTALL_DIR]\source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff > > Code Change Description: The code that has been modified supplies the > > compression functionality in the of the build system. This code was > > created > > as part of the Dojo Foundation. More information on this > functionality > > can > > be found at http://dojotoolkit.org/docs/compressor_system.html > > ---------------- > > > > Would this be sufficient? > > Yes -- this looks good to me. The page you linked to is much more > helpful than the generic Mozilla source page that I saw in the Rhino > README. This one is specific to Rhino and refers to the specific > source the diff is based on (in this case the HEAD of the repository). > > Cliff > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bob Buffone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:41 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote > > > > Cliff, > > > > MPL 1.1 > > 3.2. Availability of Source Code. > > > > This is met by the fact as we supply the diff of the svn repository in > > the distribution, at > > source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff > > > > 3.3. Description of Modifications. > > > > We will need to make this clearer, by putting it in the notice and > > describing the modification. > > > > Should this meet and concerns on the custom rhino code. If so, I will > > update the NOTICE.txt and LICENSE.txt to have reference to the MPL and > > upload a new version. > > > > Bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:40 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote > > > > On 2/8/07, James Margaris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > After spending about 3 hours today merging conflicts based on > changed > > copyrights, isn't "Copyright Apache blah blah blah" no longer the > right > > header? According to some docs after November 06 the headers are > > supposed to have been changed as the source files are actually not > > copyright apache, they are copyright the original contributor and used > > by Apache under a license grant. > > > > You are right that the document I have linked you to does say that the > > copyright statement doesn't go at the top of each source file. > > However, I was referring to the statement in the NOTICE file, which > > that same document also says should include the ASF copyright notice. > > Let me know if some part of it is not clear, and I'll fix it. > > > > > What actually *is* under apache copyright rather than simply granted > > via license? > > > > The collective work of all contributions as released based on the > > determination of the PMC is done on behalf of the ASF. Every > > individual author retains copyright ownership in their contribution, > > but the ASF owns the copyright in the collective work created by a > > release (or really any other PMC decision that affects the selection, > > coordination, and arrangement of the individual contributions). > > > > > The Rhino jar we use is actually a modified version patched by the > > Dojo guys. The patch file in in the Dojo repository. > > > > OK, but I assume you understand that doesn't reduce our requirement to > > make sure the conditions of the MPL (particularly 3.1-3.6) have been > > met before we can distribute Rhino (see first sentence of MPL 3.6). > > > > > AFAIK, nobody has edited any copyright notices to change them in any > > way. > > > > That's good. > > > > Cliff > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wed 2/7/2007 6:42 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/7/07, Bob Buffone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Xapians, > > > > > > > > I have posted a release candidate at: > > > > http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/ > > > > > > > > This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff > > (NOTICE.txt, > > > > and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file > > name. > > > > > > > > Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the release > to > > > > this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to > coding. > > > > > > I took another good look through it. The LICENSE file looks good, > but > > > then I got concerned when I noticed that it appears to only include > > > the license for the Google and Dojo stuff, but not the other things > > > that are mentioned in the NOTICE file, e.g. Rhino, Jython. If > > > something like Rhino is part of the release, it needs to have its > > > license included in the LICENSE file. > > > > > > Speaking of Rhino, I found the custom jars, but couldn't see the > > > license anywhere in that folder either. The license should ideally > be > > > near the associated third-party work, in addition to being copied or > > > referenced/linked in the top-level LICENSE file. AFAICT, it's in > > > neither place, which would be . After seeing this, I didn't track > > > down the others listed in NOTICE that do not appear to be in > LICENSE, > > > but you'd want to check them too. > > > > > > Also, I was looking for the complete Rhino source and couldn't find > > > that. I saw the README.txt that states, "The source code for Rhino > is > > > available at: > > http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code";, > > > but it wasn't obvious from there where to find the Rhino source for > > > the version used in XAP. If you don't include the source, you must > > > have a link to exactly where the source is (this is an MPL > > > requirement). > > > > > > BTW, I have no idea why Google and Dojo get this wrong, but there's > no > > > comma after the year or year range in a copyright notice. There's > > > also no need for "Copyright" followed by "(c)" -- just one or the > > > other. I definitely wouldn't fix any third-party copyright notices; > > > just copy it from what they used, as you did; however, the Apache > one > > > should be written properly, as described in the link I gave you > > > ("Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation"). I wouldn't > have > > > bothered stopping a release vote if this was the only problem, but > if > > > you're fixing the other things, you might want to make sure the > Apache > > > one is clean. You can also see the actual Copyright Act's > requirement > > > here: > > > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000401----0 > > 00-.html#b. > > > > > > BTW, did Mozilla, Jython, and Python all make the same mistake? I > > > didn't check all of them, but I just want to make sure there was no > > > editing done of their copyright notices. > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > >
