With regard to the question asked below, My only wish about the voting process is that there be enough time for anyone to vet the release candidate. Also, votes should not be based on sentiment but by actually checking the release candidate in some way (verifying digital signatures and hashes, verifying the code installs in a fresh machine, verifying that whatever builds and tests by following the instructions works without incident other than limitations described in any README, etc.). This is a [P]PMC responsibility, although it will be nice if others on this list also did so.
It is likely that members of the Incubator PMC will do the same. Possible Clarification ---------------------- I think that if binaries are provided, the LICENSE and NOTICE files that install with the binaries must reflect the license conditions on everything (and only that) included in the binary distribution. A README or related file and to acknowledge contributions and dependencies is useful for information that is not legally required in NOTICE. I don't understand "- If we only link to a third party library and do not include it in the license, we do not need to mention it anywhere (as is this is no legal issue)." Do you mean "If we only link to a third party library and do not include it in the [source] code ..."? Also, if it is a mandatory dependency in order to build the released source into a functional result, license of the third party library still matters with regard to ASF policy (which goes beyond what is legally required). It would be very useful if Justin communicated here directly and we could resolve any nuances of understanding with him. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: jan i [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 04:11 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Release_0.1 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: jan i <[email protected]> Date: 13 August 2015 at 12:00 Subject: Re: Release_0.1 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected] > Hi Sorry for top posting. Justin have been an enormous help in getting the licenses etc correct, there was a couple of new things to me. - If we only link to a third party library and do not include it in the license, we do not need to mention it anywhere (as is this is no legal issue) - I wanted to play fair to our users, and have made a LINK_DEPENDENCY file - DEVELOPERS got a short description of why these names and not others. I hope I have just sent the last version to justin for checking and then get started on the voting process (2 fold, first us, then IPMC). Are there any special wishes regarding the voting process ? Please remember a release cannot be vetoed with a -1. rgds jan i. [ ... ]
