And, of course, the link helps...

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]

  :)



On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   Just to keep everyone updated...
> 
>   This is the most recent post from Cliff into the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> mailing list.  Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet on the
> JSR 173 API licensing issue.
> 
>   I'll send more info along as I see it...
> 
> Eddie
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree -- great news.  Thanks for dealing with it!  1.0, here we come...
> > Rich
> >
> > Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> >
> > >Steve--
> > >
> > >  I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree -- seems
> > >like it's time to cut a branch.  Will spin out a vote on doing so...
> > >
> > >Eddie
> > >
> > >
> > >On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Eddie,
> > >>
> > >>That is great news!
> > >>
> > >>Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch being created
> > >>for v1?
> > >>
> > >>Thanks
> > >>Steve
> > >>
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM
> > >>To: Beehive Developers
> > >>Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872
> > >>
> > >>All--
> > >>
> > >>  I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto the new JSR 173
> > >>API package.  This has been vetted by the appropriate lawyers to
> > >>ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache compatible and
> > >>can be shipped with a Beehive distribution.
> > >>
> > >>  The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from ASF folks about
> > >>what to do with their 2.0 release.  I suppose it's possible that
> > >>they'll need to re-roll the release.  If that happens, we'll need to
> > >>decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship, though I'd
> > >>guess any new version they release will be compatible with the 2.0
> > >>from June.
> > >>
> > >>  The change I committed does a few things:
> > >>- switches the download package for JSR 173 from
> > >>http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans
> > >>- bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution
> > >>- adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to the distribution
> > >>
> > >>  I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since our license
> > >>issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see where XMLBeans goes
> > >>with this next.
> > >>
> > >>  Questions / comments?
> > >>
> > >>Eddie
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>  Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this morinng about the
> > >>>JSR 173 bundle:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3
> > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>All--
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  If you've been reading the release status e-mails that have been
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>in
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872 is tracking a license
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>issue
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>with XMLBeans and their dependency on the JSR 173 API JAR.  There
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>was
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this morning that switched
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>onto
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some different license
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>verbage
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>in it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  There's mail in [EMAIL PROTECTED] that checks to make sure that the
> > >>>>license issue is resolved, but if it's taken care of from their
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>side,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>I'm sitting on a change that will add the correct license to our SVN
> > >>>>tree and download and will switch us onto the new JSR 173 package.
> > >>>>Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit that and resolve the
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>1.0
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>blocking JIRA issue.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Eddie
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to