On Dec 17, 2007 5:44 PM, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevan Miller wrote: > > > > On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote: > > > >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>> Marshall Schor wrote: > >>>> We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top > directory > >>>> of the source (and binary) distribution(s), but didn't realize this > >>>> also > >>>> needs to be in the top level of the SVN tag, because we didn't know > >>>> that > >>>> was considered part of the "distribution". > >>>> > >>>> Can you please confirm this is the case? In which case, we'll of > >>>> course > >>>> comply. > >>> > >>> Your distribution must correspond to subversion, otherwise it's very > >>> hard > >>> to track the artifacts in the tarball, where they came from, how they > >>> got there, and if they underwent the proper oversight prior to > >>> packaging. > >>> (Yes, we vote on the prepared tarball, but you can see how > discrepancies > >>> do create questions.) > >> > >> That's not how I interpret the policy document. It says: > >> > >> "To apply the ALv2 to a new software distribution, include one copy of > >> the license text by copying > >> the file: > >> > >> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt > >> > >> into a file called LICENSE in the top directory of your distribution. > >> If the distribution is a jar > >> or tar file, try to add the LICENSE file first in order to place it at > >> the top of the archive." > >> > >> That's what we do. Of course we'll make every effort to make > >> our distribution easy to review. However, it does seem that > >> we're ok wrt current policy, and view this as a suggestion > >> for next time. Ok? > > > > Your interpretation works if your subversion repository is not a > > "distribution". IMO, it is and should contain appropriate > > license/notice/disclaimer. > > If that is the consensus opinion here, that's what we'll > do. But please put yourself in our shoes. We can only go > by the information that is available to us. If this is a > rule, it would be great if it could be written down so the > next incubator project doesn't have to go through this. I'd > be happy to help with the docs. > > Out of curiosity, I started going through the Apache SVN repo > to see what Apache projects complied with this requirement. I > stopped after C because I'd already found 4 that didn't > comply: Avalon, Cayenne, Cocoon and Commons. Compliant > were Activemq, Ant, APR and Beehive. > > --Thilo >
I've never considered that the SVN tag for a release is a "distribution" before, but its an interesting idea. There clearly is not yet consensus among the IPMC on this though or if that tag MUST have LICENSE and NOTICE files in the the top-level directory. As pointed out above many Apache projects don't do this, and looking back at all the recent Incubator poddling releases many of those have not done this either but never the less their vote has passed. So it is a new requirement and I don't think we should be making up policy during a release vote like this as it makes it very frustrating for poddling. How about letting this UIMA release out as-is for now while we work this out? Kevan, would you withdraw your -1 for this release while we resolve this? ...ant
