On 25/03/13 11:02, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
Hi Fabian,
thanks for pointing out the thing with the disclaimer. I added the
necessary remote resources so they will be included. How do we continue,
should we restart the vote completely (with 72h)? Or is it enough I
re-upload and you check again?
If you change the code tree, then the src will change. The src must
build the binaries.
I'll go through Fabian's message and draw up a list of points, then we
can sort each one out. Some are from before where we don't seem to have
a common understanding of what is necessary and what can be delayed to
next release.
What I have seen done is to list the changes on the next RC so it's
clear what been done to people reading the email list.
Andy
I've having trouble with git repo - I now only see tag "import". Did
the tag for the release get undone and not redone? Is it pushed?
Rest of the comments below:
2013/3/25 Fabian Christ <[email protected]>
The KEYS are okay but could be placed at a location like
http://marmotta.incubator.apache.org/KEYS
They will :)
Checking ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.zip
LICENSE & NOTICE: "software based on Sgvizler license under a
MIT-style license" in NOTICE but
"Sgvizler Javascript library, which is available under a "MIT"
license" in LICENSE. Is there a difference? Not a problem for the
release.
Fixed.
"data based on JSON-LD Test Suite licensed under CC0 License" in
NOTICE but there is no info in LICENSE - what is CC0? Fix in future
releases.
Creative Commons 0 (basically public domain).
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
Checking
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.zip
LICENSE & NOTICE: "H2 Database Engine under The H2 License, Version
1.0" in NOTICE but in LICENSE there is no "H2 License". In LICENSE it
says "is dual licensed and available
under a modified version of the MPL 1.1 (Mozilla Public License) or
under the (unmodified) EPL 1.0 (Eclipse Public License)". You do not
include a copy of this modified versions. I am really not an expert
but there might be people who would argue that you need to include a
copy of such licenses in LICENSE. My understanding of the ASF policies
is that you should include copies of the license not just pointers.
People need to be able to verify the licenses without the need to
follow pointers to websites which may change. In doubt I would include
the license text.
There is no real doubt here. I copied the NOTICE from the webpage, where
they say it is sufficient. I anyways appended it to the LICENSE of the
webapp and installer distributions.
Checking
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.zip
marmotta-installer-3.0.0-incubating.jar/META-INF: Missing LICENSE,
NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
marmotta.war: Missing DISCLAIMER
Checking
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.zip
NOTICE has a list of included libs but the LICENSE does not list all
of them -> missing pointers to LICENSES
ldpath-3.0.0-incubating.jar/META-INF : Missing LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
This is built by the onejar application. The LICENSE, NOTICE, and
DISCLAIMER should be in all the jar files the super-jar contains. I'll
check if there is a way to also include these files in the superjar.
Greetings,
Sebastian
