Up John? Are you ok to change your vote to a -0 and not veto the release since we are good legally but just didnt respect a good practise?
If not I can rerun the release tomorrow and add another not standard file to replace our notice mention but i dont see any reason to require another vote for that for now. Le 15 mars 2018 07:11, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit : > @John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have another discuss > thread about it for you - legally we are ok anyway? > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> > > 2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>: > >> I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and not 'MUST >> NOT'. >> Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show stopper imo. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> > Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> >> wrote: >> > +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license >> > >> > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright >> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. >> > > >> > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright >> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the >> > > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. >> > >> > It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;) >> > >> > +1 from me. >> > >> > >> > Sorry but you're incorrect. The copyright claim is already present by >> copying in their license file. >> > >> > BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a >> notice file >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262 >> > >> > There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded. >> > >> > >> > >> > LieGrue, >> > strub >> > >> > >> > > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a >> écrit : >> > > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product >> includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement >> (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it >> there. >> > > >> > > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file. >> > > >> > > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in >> notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you >> let users do again this job which is insanely bad. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a >> écrit : >> > > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded >> dependency) include >> > > >> > > This product includes software developed at >> > > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/) >> > > >> > > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not >> need to declare any notice. >> > > >> > > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is >> no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I >> was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > yep, as written ;) >> > > >> > > >> > > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >> > > >> > > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com>: >> > > Romain, >> > > >> > > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right? >> > > >> > > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> > > Hi! >> > > >> > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7. >> > > >> > > Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/ >> content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049 >> > > The source distribution can be found here: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache >> geronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip >> > > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5 >> > > >> > > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10). >> > > >> > > [+1] ship it >> > > [+0] meh, don’t care >> > > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason} >> > > >> > > The VOTE is open for 72h. >> > > >> > > Here is my +1. >> > > >> > > >> > > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >
