Hi Thomas, thanks for your reply. Hope you did not misunderstand me. I really appreciated that you investigated about the licensing, and I am well aware of its importance. I just cannot take care of everything myself and there are probably people out there who are better with legal stuff than I am.
About the 72 hour period: I don't think generally extending the period is a good idea, it will just slow down the process. Instead I suggest, that if anyone wants to have a closer look but needs more time, just to post a short message saying until when he / she will be able to look at it. The caller of the vote (Jörg so far) will then wait until this person has answered. Would that be OK for you Thomas? For the upcoming release: I think we should just update the 1.0.4. struts2-extentions release now, by including the two questionable jars instead of the "libinfo.txt" file in the lib directory (Thomas was that the file you were looking for?). We have already made a few code changes unter the 2.0.5 / 1.0.5. label, but I would rather not close this version yet. BTW: With my source-forge comment I just wanted to point out, that users (not me) would probably want an Apache distribution for download which we still cannot offer. I fear that that might put possible users off. Regards, Rainer Thomas Fischer wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Rainer Döbele wrote: > > > looks like we're running in circles with that struts2 extentions > > release. Partially it is probably my own fault since I did not question > > Thomas' findings but I must say I am not really fond of all these legal > > issues. > > Nobody is fond of that. But, if you want people to respect your own > license, you better respect other people's licenses. > > > Personally I would really like to bundle the servlet-api and jsp-api in > > order to have a nice clean and easy build process. I am also willing to > > change the release build scripts once again. > > I have no problem with including the tomcat libraries. > > > However I would like everyone to acknolege that the process of making a > > release build, uploading it, calling for vote on the dev-list, wainting > > or 72 hours, posting the result, calling for voting on the general list, > > ... is quite a tedious task and costs Jörg and me a lot of time. > > > > I would really appreciate if anyone who want's to check the release > > would do this, while we're voting on the empire-db-dev list and not > > leave it until we're on the general-incubator list. This would make life > > for us a lot easier. > > I would also rather like to check the release while the vote is on > empire-db-dev. But then the 72 hours is way too short. Remember that the > mentors are non-paid volunteers and are doing the review in their spare > time, and it also costs us a lot of time. If we do not have time in two > successive evenings, the vote is closed. I'd appreciate a 7 days voting > period. > > > We have run though this whole process three times now, and we still have > > no binding positive votes for the struts2-extentions yet. If there are > > any objections with what we currently offer as the release we should > > really discuss and resolve them before our next attempt. > > It does not build by default, and there is no documentation on how to > build it (at least I did not find it, and though I asked it [1] nobody > pointed it out, so I assume that it is not there). It does build if one > downloads the servlet and jsp api and puts them in the appropriate > directory with the appropriate name, but this needs to be documented. > > > Furthermore the question is how we will be able to get three binding > > votes at all on the general incubator list. Unfortuately there has > > recently been litte interest in this matter so all we can hope for is a > > positive vote of Henning, Thomas and Martijn. So my question goes > > especially to those three: How can procede in order to get a positive > > vote from you. > > We are three mentors, this should be enough to get three positive votes > if the issues are resolved. The 1.0.3 release candidate has still the > freemarker license problem, and the 1.0.4 release has no build > documentation, so both are problematic. I'd vote +1 on a 1.0.5 rc with > either the jsp api and servlet api from tomcat, or an appropriate build > documentation (which would be a good idea even if you'd include the jars) > > > Please take into accout, that the distribution currently avaialbe for > > downlaod from our project web-site and source-forge has nothing to do > > with apache at all. This will make it even harder to attract new users. > > The difference betweeen apache and sourceforge is that apache projects > have some kind of overwiew, and sourceforge hasn't. If you do not want the > overwiew, and think that it is too much hassle, there is always the > sourceforge alternative. > > Thomas > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator- > general/200809.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
