Thanks Sebb for explaining out in detail, since this is our first release I think we would require some guidance. We would fix the LICENSE and the NOTICE but there a few questions, in the same regard.
This an eclipse plugin so we are using other Eclipse libs like EMF[1]. These are based on EPL. The libs are not shipped because the eclipse runtime environment takes care of them. Do they need a mention in the LICENSE/NOTICE ? Also the project is build using Tycho[2], does it require to mention the same in LICENSE/NOTICE ? regards, Rahul [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Modeling_Framework [2]http://www.sonatype.org/tycho/license On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:49 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 November 2013 10:21, Rahul Sharma <rahul0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to call for a vote for Apache Hadoop Development Tools > > (incubating), version 0.0.1.incubating. The vote has happened of the dev > > mailing list and the community has approved the third release > > candidate(RC2) for Apache Hadoop Development Tools (incubating), version > > 0.0.1.incubating.The release has Zookeper and HDFS features from the > > *hadoop-eclipse-merge* codebase.The issues raised for RC0 and RC1 have > been > > addressed in this release. > > > > 1 IPMC votes have already been cast: > > Roman Shaposhnik (mentor) > > > > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Hadoop Development Tools > > 0.0.1.incubating. > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache HDT 0.0.1.incubating > > [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... > > > > PPMC Vote thread : > > http://apache.markmail.org/message/sqerudh5emqzqfrg > > > > Vote Result : > > http://apache.markmail.org/message/rvskqqernk4fmumt > > > > Source and binary files: > > http://people.apache.org/~rsharma/hdt-0.0.1.incubating-rc2/ > > > > The tag to be voted upon: > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hdt.git;a=commit;h=02f75eda16a8b91f0b35abad9487a9c83fd4c8d6 > > NOTICE says: > > This product includes Eclipse Icons from > http://tech.joelbecker.net/articles/resources/5-eclipseicons - Eclipse > Public License v 1.0 > > However the LICENSE file does not include the EPL. > > I think this is a blocker; any 3rd party inclusions must be > accompanied by their license, either in the LICENSE file or as a > separate file referenced from the LICENSE file. [The end user must be > able to find the licenses easily, not go searching through directory > trees]. > > Without knowing the text of the EPL, it's not possible to determine > whether there also needs to be a mention in the NOTICE file (the > LICENSE may be sufficient) It's vital that the NOTICE file only has > required elements in it; unnecessary content must be removed [1] > > The binary archive contains some 3rd party libraries; these need to be > mentioned in the embedded LICENSE and perhaps the NOTICE file. > > I noticed SLF4J - are there any others? > > This is another blocker, IMO. > > Note that the NOTICE & LICENSE files must relate to the distribution > to which they belong; generally this means that the ones in the source > archive match the ones at the top-level of SCM (i.e. git here); the > binary archive may require additional entries in LICENSE and possibly > NOTICE. > > Also the word "Devlopment" appears in at least one NOTICE file as part > of the product name. Is that really the correct product name? > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice > > > PGP keys used to sign the release: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hdt/KEYS > > > > Some guideline to verify release can be found at : > > http://apache.markmail.org/message/qj3srhvozapbwmq6 > > > > regards, > > Rahul > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
