On 25 November 2011 20:11, ant elder <antel...@apache.org> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote: >>>> >>>>> Alan, >>>>> >>>>>>> It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list; it >>>>> was my understanding that votes take 72 hours. >>>>> >>>>> Because the only change was in the NOTICE and DISCLAIMER files from >>>>> previous RC, our champion (Chris C) suggested we could run a quicker lazy >>>>> 24 hour vote. >>>> >>>> Yeah, I'm not sure the vote can be shortened. I could be wrong. If it >>>> can then I totally agree with the inclination to get goin' with this >>>> release. I'm sorry it's had so many first and starts. >>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, I've found some problems in the NOTICE file in that Kafka >>>>> uses/ship NUnit but it's not in the NOTICE file. >>>>> >>>>> Quoting sebb and Kafka's champion (Chris C) discussed this in the last >>>>> vote >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>>>>> 4) Your NOTICE file includes lot's of "This product includes X, >>>>> developed by X.org" Your notice file should only include notices that you >>>>> are *required* to have. Don't include acknowledgements in your notice file >>>>> just for completeness. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Just to be clear: why not? >>>>> >>>>> *>>> The NOTICE file should be as short as possible, but no shorter. >>>>> * >>>>> Having said that, we also don't have any jar like "NUnit" in the release >>>>> artifacts. >>>> >>>> B ./bin/../clients/csharp/lib/nunit/2.5.9/nunit.framework.dll >>>> >>>> Reading the license >>>> >>>> http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=license&r=2.5.9 >>>> >>>> it seems to me that an acknowledgment in the product documentation is >>>> required. Am I misreading their license? (wouldn't be the first time) >>>> >>> >>> I don't remember that license coming up before so the easiest way to >>> find out is to bring it up at legal-discuss@. A similar question was >>> raised in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59 and the >>> conclusion there was it didn't have to be in the NOTICE. This is not >>> exactly the same but it is similar so maybe it would be ok for this >>> release could go ahead assuming its ok and raise a legal JIRA to >>> confirm that for the future? >> >> The tgz files are the product that's being distributed. It's clear that the >> NUnit license requires an acknowledgement somewhere in the product. >> > > Earlier you said nunit was missing from the NOTICE so thats what I was > replying about, but I think what you meant was that it was missing > from the LICENSE too right? This does appear to ship the nunit dll and > not mention that in the LICENSE file and that does seem like something > that needs to be fixed.
In which case, any unnecessary entries in the NOTICE file should be removed at the same time please. > ...ant > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
