On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 4:39 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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? > -1's on releases are never vetos. Very surprised you don't know this. You should review [1] and [2] esp since you're a new chair. [1]: http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval [2]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > 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/orgapachegeronimo-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 >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >>> >>
