El jue, 21-05-2009 a las 07:03 -0400, Upayavira escribió: > I am a mentor for Shindig, but I am aware of a weaknesses of mine as a > mentor is that I'm not that knowledgeable or experienced with the > release process at Apache, and therefore have not followed this thread > in detail, which I really should have. > > It seems that this release is stalled, but I am not entirely sure how, > and want to understand this better. > > The thing that confuses me is that, as I understand it, Shindig is just > using Maven to produce its artefacts (binary jars as a convenience to > users). If that is the case, surely those artefacts are structured in > the same way as other Maven based releases from other projects? > > Is it that we have identified a new issue that actually affects _all_ > Maven based releases, not just Shindig? If so, how can we both unblock > the Shindig release and also get this issue resolved in such a way as it > covers all Maven based projects? >
+1 Regards Santiago, who has been biting his lips about not agreeing with the guy complaining in a blog entry about bureaucracy @apache, but it is more and more difficult as his lips are starting to bleed :P > Upayavira > > On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 13:25 +0100, sebb wrote: > > On 12/05/2009, Vincent Siveton <vincent.sive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2009/5/12 sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > >> I was reliably informed that this was discussed on the Maven list in > > > >> March > > > >> 2008 (subject: legal-discuss) and for binary distributions that are > > > created > > > >> by the war packager that contained 3rd party libraries the > > > DEPENDENCIES file > > > >> was sufficient to comply with ASF rules. > > > > > > > > The Maven list is not the place for definitive advice. > > > > > > > > If there are any doubts, these should be raised on the legal-discuss > > > list. > > > > > > > > > Sure, it is why it was discussed on d...@maven AND legal-discuss@ > > > http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/message/g2elchg5iwqnif6m > > > > Thanks for the pointer. > > > > The thread includes the statement: > > > > " Given that I said that rolling up LICENSE and NOTICE files for > > artifacts that assemble and contain other artifacts such as wars and > > ears is out of scope for this proposal," > > > > so I'm not convinced that the thread applies here. > > > > But even if it does, Henry Yandell wrote: > > > > "Let's say I include a few of the jars in my distribution, but not all. > > Then I'll need to add some of the LICENSE files and not other." > > > > > Shindig uses the org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 which is > > > AFAIK compliant with the requirements discussed on legal-discuss. > > > > I'm not convinced. > > > > It may be that the 3rd party jars don't need to be mentioned in > > NOTICE, but I'm sure that their licences need to be included in the > > LICENSE file. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Vincent > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
