I looked at the NOTICE (1) and LICENSE (2) files, and I was surprised to see BSD- and MIT-licensed libraries mentioned in the NOTICE file. If I understand the guidelines (3) correctly, these are not necessary. Also if I understand the guidelines correctly, it is desirable to put as little as possible into the NOTICE file as possible. After looking at the Eclipse license (4), I suspect libraries licensed under that also do not require an entry in the NOTICE file. For the other licenses, I'm even less certain than I am for these. So I hope our mentors will weigh in on these three licenses (BSD, MIT, and Eclipse), and once we have that, I'll check the remaining ones.
In the LICENSE file, I was surprised to see the entire license text of all these licenses copied in. If I understand the guidelines correctly, it is preferable to include a link to these licenses within the distribution unless they are very short (which most of them aren't). I especially feel uneasy about the copying in of GPL into the LICENSE text. Not sure how rational that is, but I just don't like it. Neither of these are blockers for release, depending on how well we want to do it on our first go. I would give the release a +1 vote despite these objections, if we could resolve the GPL license issue. I would expect us to resolve the other issues before our next release though (if they actually are issues -- again: *MENTORS?*). Greets from the Voreifel, Germany, Myrle Krantz 1.) https://github.com/apache/incubator-fineract/blob/0.1.0-incubating/NOTICE 2.) https://github.com/apache/incubator-fineract/blob/0.1.0-incubating/LICENSE 3.) http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps 4.) http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php *Myrle Krantz* Solutions Architect RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative [email protected] | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Adi Raju <[email protected]> wrote: > Release files correspond to the following fineract source branch > https://github.com/apache/incubator-fineract/tree/0.1.0-incubating > > Regards, > Adi > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Markus Geiß [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 12 April 2016 10:08 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [VOTE] [FINERACT] 0.1.0.incubating for release > > +1 > > Maybe we can add a link to the GitHub tag, so it is easier to validate the > content. > > > Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:15:16 +0530 > > Subject: [VOTE] [FINERACT] 0.1.0.incubating for release > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > > > Hello All, > > > > I have prepared the files for first release of FINERACT. > > The files are hosted at > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/fineract/ > > This is a source only release with no binaries, with instructions on > > how to build/test the application. > > > > Being the first release, I request the mentors to review the content, > > especially of LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER files. > > > > We have multi-tenancy architecture. Main DB contains list of tenants > > and their corresponding DB names and access details. > > These tenant specific DB can even have variations in schema. Access to > > these tenant databases are created at runtime. > > Enhancement of entity objects corresponding to tenant databases fails > > with OpenJPA. This is because access to DB metadata of tenant > > databases is not available at boot time. > > We couldn't migrate to OpenJPA and avoid dependency on > Hibernate(LGPLv2.1). > > Since we are making source only distribution, can we get waiver on > > this dependency? > > > > With this background, I call for formal VOTING for the first release. > > > > Regards, > > Adi Raju > > >
