+1 (binding) Package https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/flexjs/0.7.0/rc1/apache-flex-flexjs-0.7.0-src.tar.gz Java 1.7 OS: Mac OS X x86_64 10.11.6 Source kit signatures match: y Source kit builds: y README is ok: y RELEASE_NOTES is ok: y NOTICE is ok: y LICENSE is ok: y No unapproved licenses or archives: y No unapproved binaries: y
Package https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/flexjs/0.7.0/rc1/binaries/apache-flex-flexjs-0.7.0-bin.tar.gz Binary kit signatures match: y NOTICE is ok: y LICENSE is ok: y No unapproved licenses or archives in binary package: y No unapproved binaries in binary package: y Package https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/flexjs/0.7.0/rc1/doc/apache-flex-flexjs-0.7.0-asdocs.zip Doc kit signatures match: y NOTICE is ok: y LICENSE is ok: y No unapproved licenses or archives in doc package: y No unapproved binaries in doc package: y ________________________________ Von: Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. September 2016 16:41:48 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1 Hi, -1 (binding). The LICENSE file mentions 2 MIT licensed pieces of software but we are not including the copyright or text of the respective MIT license as required by terms of the MIT license. [1] Normally in a source release you would add a local file pointer to the full text in LICENSE [2]. I would vote +1 on another RC if there pointer to the full MIT license text added. For info on ASF policy and why I voted -1 see [3] ("meet all requirements of ASF policy”) [4] (“Every ASF release MUST comply with ASF licensing policy") and [5] ("The component license itself MUST either be appended or else stored elsewhere in the package”). But again just a reminder that a -1 is not a veto, a release only needs 3 +1 and more +1s than -1s to be made a release. People can keep voting and people can change their votes at any time, including those who have previously voted +1 on this. I checked: - signatures and hashed good - LICENSE and NOTICE ok - all source files have ASF headers - no unexpected binary files in source release - unable to compile from source (with some issues) - tests pass I took a quick look at the connivance binary release and found no obvious issues, it does however suffer from the same licensing issue mentioned above. Thanks, Justin 1. https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps 3. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval 4. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing 5. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-file
