On Friday, August 14, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Responses in-line > > -----Original Message----- > From: jan i [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>] > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:49 > To: [email protected] <javascript:;>; Dennis Hamilton < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > Subject: Re: Release_0.1 > > On 13 August 2015 at 20:32, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > 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. > > > would 7 days be sufficient ? > <orcmid> > Yes > </orcmid> > > [ ... ] > > 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. > > > We do not provide binaries. If you think of a compiled version of corinthia > it is not part of the release but made available e.g. by PPMC members. > <orcmid> > Understood. There is no need to consider the different LICENSE and NOTICE > files that might apply to binaries. > </orcmid> > > > > > 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 ..."? > > > I did did mean "LICENSE" file, but your wording is better. Justin made me > aware that if you only link to a library, and do not include it in the > source zip, it does not belong in LICENSE. We do not supply any third party > libraries in binary form (we supply a single in source form, and that is > mentioned in LICENSE) > > > > > 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). > > > Well is Justin tells me it has no legal effect and should not be mentioned > in LICENSE; then I do believe him (he wets 5-6 releases every month, so he > surely have more experience). > <orcmid> > I was not clear. I was not talking about LICENSE but the fact of a > license on an external dependency necessary to build usable source. > </orcmid> Ok, but I am only concerned about the release and for that we have dine what is needed. > > > > It would be very useful if Justin communicated here directly and we could > > resolve any nuances of understanding with him. > > > MIght be, but we will not take a license discussion in here. We discuss > whether or not the release will pass and when Justin tells me he is > prepared to vote +1 for the source zip then I am satisfied. > > I have not been discussing at all with Justin, but simply made the changes > he asked for, and I suggest we as podling do not question that judgement. > Whether or not link dependencies should be included in the LICENSE in > general is outside our scope. > <orcmid> > I think it would be good to have such discussions/requests recorded on > our public list, whatever their nature. > </orcmid> have a look at the commit log, every suggestion from justin ended in a commit. Again there have been no discussion, in that case I would have made it public (as I did with the first response from justin). You see the same thing happening with the findings from Daniel. rgds jan i > > rgds > jan i. > > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
