I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so I don't think that taking another few days at this point is of concern.
It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the other way on this, eg: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license "Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text? Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text." Also, on the page you linked http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers "Why is a licensing header necessary? License headers allow someone examining the file to know the terms for the work, even when it is distributed without the rest of the distribution. Without a licensing notice, it must be assumed that the author has reserved all rights, including the right to copy, modify, and redistribute." Robbie > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 04 March 2010 17:17 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really) > > On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > Blah blah blah > > > > I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I > > will total the votes. > > As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6. > > So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released. > > I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion of > license > headers in all our files. > > My interpretation of the "ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice > Policy" ( http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ) is that not > having them is not a blocker to a release: > > In para "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section 2. > It says: "Each source file should include the following license > header". > I interpret the use of the word "should" to mean non mandatory, but > strongly recommended. > > As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version > 2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says "Apache projects > MUST include correct NOTICE documents in every distribution." > > RFC 2119 (which is where I go for the meaning of these words in > technical requirements) says of "should" that there "may exist valid > reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item". > > Given all this (and that I'm frankly getting fed up of being > responsible > for a release that hasn't changed any functional part in nearly 2 > months) I would like one more positive vote so we can release 0.6 and > get on with preparing for 0.8. > > I'm disappointed that more people haven't voted for the release (even > on > the basis that they tested a functionally equivalent previous > candidate). > > Andrew > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
