+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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
