On 06/15/2011 04:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:35:05PM -0500, Richard Frovarp wrote:
There should be archived VOTE threads on the droids-private list, which were
cc'd to private@incubator.a.o. Hopefully they were for PPMC membership. If
not, there will be some cleanup work to do.
The votes were handled on the droids-dev list (like they should) and
were committer votes. So Bertil and I aren't on the PPMC.
OK... In my opinion, the intent of the community to make this release is
perfectly clear. None of the people who are officially on the PPMC objected
to it, nor did anyone raise any concerns about the validity of votes from
Committers who aren't on the PPMC.
In general, votes can come from anyone, so votes from people that aren't
on the PMC shouldn't be discouraged. In a previous vote, Ross did tell
me if I needed more binding votes, to come here.
However, it looks as though Droids isn't *bundling* either JUnit or
javax.servlet, in either in source or binary form -- you're expecting Maven to
resolve and install the dependency. Therefore, I don't believe it's required
to include the license texts which apply to those components.
I'm not even sure whether you even need attributions in NOTICE.txt for
components you aren't bundling. As best I can tell, the Droids distro archive
does not contain either source or binary materials belonging to or derived
from either JUnit or javax.servlet IP.
In summary, unless someone corrects my interpretation, LICENSE.txt is fine and
NOTICE.txt has some info which is arguably superfluous, but the presence of
that extra info does not block the release. I consider the matter
provisionally resolved.
Sebb seems to agree with your interpretation. I have fixed the files to
remove any notices to anything, except for the standard ASF notice.
License only include AL2. I was unclear on this, as you can't have
runtime required dependencies on category X items. A project can't
require Hibernate (LGPL) and claim that it is okay because Apache Maven
is bringing in the dependency. It was not clear to me how category-B
should be handled. Consensus is to say nothing if it isn't being
bundled, so everything has been removed.
OK. In my rush, I hadn't noticed that the Maven-generated NOTICE file was just
a stub rather than a substantially different version of NOTICE.txt. It's still
inaccurate because it's incomplete, though:
Droids
Copyright 2007-2011 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
I've renamed NOTICE.txt to NOTICE and have updated all the references in
the poms to Apache Droids, instead of just Droids. This should insure
that future packages have the correct information.
Yep. I double checked and RAT only flags that silly DEPENDENCIES file.
License headers look good!
Excellent. Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
