Hi,
there's no veto for release, even with a -1. So, if you are fine with
this and address in next release, we can proceed.
Regards
JB
On 18/03/2018 21:39, Romain Manni-Bucau 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?
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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto:johndam...@apache.org>>:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament
<john.d.am...@gmail.com <mailto:john.d.am...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg
<strub...@yahoo.de <mailto: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
<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 <mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com>>:
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament"
<johndam...@apache.org <mailto: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 <mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament"
<johndam...@apache.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
<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
<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
> >
> >
> >
