Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nlwrote: Right. I just kind of feel like maybe we should check this with Apache legal, to make sure we're not doing anything exceedingly stupid here which is entirely non-obvious to us non-lawyers. Is that crazy? Cheers, Dirkjan Sounds sensible in my opinion. Cheers, -- Octavian Damiean GitHub: https://github.com/mainerror
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nlwrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: My +0 means that i don't want to block on that vote. I'm uncomfortable to release a documentation that isn't totally under the apache 2 license since I don't know what could be the impact on the distribution of it by others in their own projects. WHich is the point of using the apache 2 license. Now I guess it can be OK if we fix in next minor release. Right. I just kind of feel like maybe we should check this with Apache legal, to make sure we're not doing anything exceedingly stupid here which is entirely non-obvious to us non-lawyers. Is that crazy? We can do it that way. Or maybe it's easier to just fix it now. Which license are we missing right now? I gave my agreement last day but could be done in a more formal way until tomorrow if needed. Still the question is interesting ;) - benoit
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: We can do it that way. Or maybe it's easier to just fix it now. Which license are we missing right now? I gave my agreement last day but could be done in a more formal way until tomorrow if needed. Still the question is interesting ;) I think that necessitates another rc cycle. I don't mind so much cutting another candidate, but I wouldn't like to ask our community to run their tests again on a build candidate that's the same from a code point of view. I wouldn't mind short-circuiting the voting, but I'm guessing other people have problems with that.
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
My +0 means that i don't want to block on that vote. I'm uncomfortable to release a documentation that isn't totally under the apache 2 license since I don't know what could be the impact on the distribution of it by others in their own projects. WHich is the point of using the apache 2 license. Now I guess it can be OK if we fix in next minor release. Benoit, we have lots and lots of components of CouchDB that are not under the Apache license. This is not a problem. All that matters is that we have the legal right to distribute the bits and bites in the tarball, and that our downstream users have the same rights. Which we have established on-list, even if it is not documented properly in the tarball itself. On 14 October 2013 11:34, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: We can do it that way. Or maybe it's easier to just fix it now. Which license are we missing right now? I gave my agreement last day but could be done in a more formal way until tomorrow if needed. Still the question is interesting ;) I think that necessitates another rc cycle. I don't mind so much cutting another candidate, but I wouldn't like to ask our community to run their tests again on a build candidate that's the same from a code point of view. I wouldn't mind short-circuiting the voting, but I'm guessing other people have problems with that. -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: which one ? All of included code which have a specific license are specified in the NOTICE file. If not this is wrong. I don't understand what you mean when you say you're uncomfortable. Perhaps you mean that you don't feel that the two bits we're including (one from you, and one from Chistopher Lenz) are totally under the Apache License 2.0. I would counter that they are. You've already explicitly told us that it is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. That was the purpose of the email thread that I started last week. That's not totally true. http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Scope We *mus*t document third-party license. This also a way to make sure we don't use any code that could prohibit any commercial use. Which is the case if some part of the doc is under an unclear license. The text of the doc you linked is: While the core Apache developed code will be under one of the Apache licenses, other third party works may have been included and their license text may have been added to the Apache projects' LICENSE or NOTICE files. Alternatively, they may be available separately. But we've already done this. The two bits we're talking about have been licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which we already include in the distribution. It is the first license we list at the top of our LICENSE file. So we have documented the license. The only thing we're missing is an entry in our NOTICE file that attributes the copyright to you, and another bit that attributes the copyright to Christopher Lenz. That's it. I think that's an issue, but I don't think it's a release blocking issue. Christopher's work is already attributed to him in the .rst doc. So that's not a problem. We actually need to move that to the NOTICE file for the next release. So the only real issue here that we have included your work without attributing your copyright. So the question is: are you happy for us to ship a release without the copyright notice for your work? This is entirely up to you. There is no legal requirement for us to do so unless you force us to. Thanks, -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: which one ? All of included code which have a specific license are specified in the NOTICE file. If not this is wrong. I don't understand what you mean when you say you're uncomfortable. Perhaps you mean that you don't feel that the two bits we're including (one from you, and one from Chistopher Lenz) are totally under the Apache License 2.0. I would counter that they are. You've already explicitly told us that it is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. That was the purpose of the email thread that I started last week. That's not totally true. http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Scope We *mus*t document third-party license. This also a way to make sure we don't use any code that could prohibit any commercial use. Which is the case if some part of the doc is under an unclear license. The text of the doc you linked is: While the core Apache developed code will be under one of the Apache licenses, other third party works may have been included and their license text may have been added to the Apache projects' LICENSE or NOTICE files. Alternatively, they may be available separately. But we've already done this. The two bits we're talking about have been licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which we already include in the distribution. It is the first license we list at the top of our LICENSE file. So we have documented the license. The only thing we're missing is an entry in our NOTICE file that attributes the copyright to you, and another bit that attributes the copyright to Christopher Lenz. That's it. I think that's an issue, but I don't think it's a release blocking issue. Christopher's work is already attributed to him in the .rst doc. So that's not a problem. We actually need to move that to the NOTICE file for the next release. So the only real issue here that we have included your work without attributing your copyright. So the question is: are you happy for us to ship a release without the copyright notice for your work? This is entirely up to you. There is no legal requirement for us to do so unless you force us to. Thanks, -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater I am pretty clear on what I am uncomfortable. ie either that some docs are not licensed correctly or the information in the notice file is missing. This shadow zone is a problem when we are speaking about relicensing in a business product. I would be more comfortable if we are strict about that. - benoit
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
also not my +0. i am not saying a blocking issue. However i do think that this issue is important . We should be really strict about that preserving the spirit of our license. - benoit On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: which one ? All of included code which have a specific license are specified in the NOTICE file. If not this is wrong. I don't understand what you mean when you say you're uncomfortable. Perhaps you mean that you don't feel that the two bits we're including (one from you, and one from Chistopher Lenz) are totally under the Apache License 2.0. I would counter that they are. You've already explicitly told us that it is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. That was the purpose of the email thread that I started last week. That's not totally true. http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Scope We *mus*t document third-party license. This also a way to make sure we don't use any code that could prohibit any commercial use. Which is the case if some part of the doc is under an unclear license. The text of the doc you linked is: While the core Apache developed code will be under one of the Apache licenses, other third party works may have been included and their license text may have been added to the Apache projects' LICENSE or NOTICE files. Alternatively, they may be available separately. But we've already done this. The two bits we're talking about have been licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which we already include in the distribution. It is the first license we list at the top of our LICENSE file. So we have documented the license. The only thing we're missing is an entry in our NOTICE file that attributes the copyright to you, and another bit that attributes the copyright to Christopher Lenz. That's it. I think that's an issue, but I don't think it's a release blocking issue. Christopher's work is already attributed to him in the .rst doc. So that's not a problem. We actually need to move that to the NOTICE file for the next release. So the only real issue here that we have included your work without attributing your copyright. So the question is: are you happy for us to ship a release without the copyright notice for your work? This is entirely up to you. There is no legal requirement for us to do so unless you force us to. Thanks, -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater I am pretty clear on what I am uncomfortable. ie either that some docs are not licensed correctly or the information in the notice file is missing. This shadow zone is a problem when we are speaking about relicensing in a business product. I would be more comfortable if we are strict about that. - benoit
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Benoit, to clear it up: * Everything is licensed correctly. We have confirmation of this on the mailing list. * We do not need to alter the LICENSE file. Any sub-components made available under the Apache License 2.0 do not require us to make any additional notes in this file. * Christopher Lenz's contribution is attributed in the source, but we should move that to the NOTICE file so that it is in line with standard procedure. * Your contribution is not attributed. But you could tell us on this thread that you are happy with that. Are you happy with it? On 14 October 2013 12:00, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: which one ? All of included code which have a specific license are specified in the NOTICE file. If not this is wrong. I don't understand what you mean when you say you're uncomfortable. Perhaps you mean that you don't feel that the two bits we're including (one from you, and one from Chistopher Lenz) are totally under the Apache License 2.0. I would counter that they are. You've already explicitly told us that it is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. That was the purpose of the email thread that I started last week. That's not totally true. http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Scope We *mus*t document third-party license. This also a way to make sure we don't use any code that could prohibit any commercial use. Which is the case if some part of the doc is under an unclear license. The text of the doc you linked is: While the core Apache developed code will be under one of the Apache licenses, other third party works may have been included and their license text may have been added to the Apache projects' LICENSE or NOTICE files. Alternatively, they may be available separately. But we've already done this. The two bits we're talking about have been licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which we already include in the distribution. It is the first license we list at the top of our LICENSE file. So we have documented the license. The only thing we're missing is an entry in our NOTICE file that attributes the copyright to you, and another bit that attributes the copyright to Christopher Lenz. That's it. I think that's an issue, but I don't think it's a release blocking issue. Christopher's work is already attributed to him in the .rst doc. So that's not a problem. We actually need to move that to the NOTICE file for the next release. So the only real issue here that we have included your work without attributing your copyright. So the question is: are you happy for us to ship a release without the copyright notice for your work? This is entirely up to you. There is no legal requirement for us to do so unless you force us to. Thanks, -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater I am pretty clear on what I am uncomfortable. ie either that some docs are not licensed correctly or the information in the notice file is missing. This shadow zone is a problem when we are speaking about relicensing in a business product. I would be more comfortable if we are strict about that. - benoit -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On 14 October 2013 12:04, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: also not my +0. i am not saying a blocking issue. However i do think that this issue is important . We should be really strict about that preserving the spirit of our license. Please be clear about what you mean when you say the spirit of our license. Can you describe in concrete terms anything about the current situation that is not in the spirit of our license? -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Benoit, you are the rights holder. So whether you are happy with this or not is of primary importance. If you said you were happy the lack of attribution for this release, I think that would help clear things up. On 14 October 2013 12:07, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: Benoit, to clear it up: * Everything is licensed correctly. We have confirmation of this on the mailing list. * We do not need to alter the LICENSE file. Any sub-components made available under the Apache License 2.0 do not require us to make any additional notes in this file. * Christopher Lenz's contribution is attributed in the source, but we should move that to the NOTICE file so that it is in line with standard procedure. * Your contribution is not attributed. But you could tell us on this thread that you are happy with that. Are you happy with it? mail telescoped. I don't have to be happy with this. Never spoke about altering the license file, but documenting the parts that need too. If most people think it's OK to release as is, then go for it. hence my +0. - benoit On 14 October 2013 12:00, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.orgwrote: On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: which one ? All of included code which have a specific license are specified in the NOTICE file. If not this is wrong. I don't understand what you mean when you say you're uncomfortable. Perhaps you mean that you don't feel that the two bits we're including (one from you, and one from Chistopher Lenz) are totally under the Apache License 2.0. I would counter that they are. You've already explicitly told us that it is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. That was the purpose of the email thread that I started last week. That's not totally true. http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Scope We *mus*t document third-party license. This also a way to make sure we don't use any code that could prohibit any commercial use. Which is the case if some part of the doc is under an unclear license. The text of the doc you linked is: While the core Apache developed code will be under one of the Apache licenses, other third party works may have been included and their license text may have been added to the Apache projects' LICENSE or NOTICE files. Alternatively, they may be available separately. But we've already done this. The two bits we're talking about have been licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which we already include in the distribution. It is the first license we list at the top of our LICENSE file. So we have documented the license. The only thing we're missing is an entry in our NOTICE file that attributes the copyright to you, and another bit that attributes the copyright to Christopher Lenz. That's it. I think that's an issue, but I don't think it's a release blocking issue. Christopher's work is already attributed to him in the .rst doc. So that's not a problem. We actually need to move that to the NOTICE file for the next release. So the only real issue here that we have included your work without attributing your copyright. So the question is: are you happy for us to ship a release without the copyright notice for your work? This is entirely up to you. There is no legal requirement for us to do so unless you force us to. Thanks, -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater I am pretty clear on what I am uncomfortable. ie either that some docs are not licensed correctly or the information in the notice file is missing. This shadow zone is a problem when we are speaking about relicensing in a business product. I would be more comfortable if we are strict about that. - benoit -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: On 14 October 2013 12:04, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: also not my +0. i am not saying a blocking issue. However i do think that this issue is important . We should be really strict about that preserving the spirit of our license. Please be clear about what you mean when you say the spirit of our license. Can you describe in concrete terms anything about the current situation that is not in the spirit of our license? make sure that our code can be reused by anyone without worrying too much about license and patent issues. - benoit
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: Benoit, you are the rights holder. So whether you are happy with this or not is of primary importance. If you said you were happy the lack of attribution for this release, I think that would help clear things up. you don't understand. This is not bout me or my rights. I only care about our users and the way they can distribute our code without worrying of the license or such. Making sure that the promise is also on the paper. - benoit On 14 October 2013 12:07, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: Benoit, to clear it up: * Everything is licensed correctly. We have confirmation of this on the mailing list. * We do not need to alter the LICENSE file. Any sub-components made available under the Apache License 2.0 do not require us to make any additional notes in this file. * Christopher Lenz's contribution is attributed in the source, but we should move that to the NOTICE file so that it is in line with standard procedure. * Your contribution is not attributed. But you could tell us on this thread that you are happy with that. Are you happy with it? mail telescoped. I don't have to be happy with this. Never spoke about altering the license file, but documenting the parts that need too. If most people think it's OK to release as is, then go for it. hence my +0. - benoit On 14 October 2013 12:00, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.orgwrote: On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: which one ? All of included code which have a specific license are specified in the NOTICE file. If not this is wrong. I don't understand what you mean when you say you're uncomfortable. Perhaps you mean that you don't feel that the two bits we're including (one from you, and one from Chistopher Lenz) are totally under the Apache License 2.0. I would counter that they are. You've already explicitly told us that it is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. That was the purpose of the email thread that I started last week. That's not totally true. http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Scope We *mus*t document third-party license. This also a way to make sure we don't use any code that could prohibit any commercial use. Which is the case if some part of the doc is under an unclear license. The text of the doc you linked is: While the core Apache developed code will be under one of the Apache licenses, other third party works may have been included and their license text may have been added to the Apache projects' LICENSE or NOTICE files. Alternatively, they may be available separately. But we've already done this. The two bits we're talking about have been licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which we already include in the distribution. It is the first license we list at the top of our LICENSE file. So we have documented the license. The only thing we're missing is an entry in our NOTICE file that attributes the copyright to you, and another bit that attributes the copyright to Christopher Lenz. That's it. I think that's an issue, but I don't think it's a release blocking issue. Christopher's work is already attributed to him in the .rst doc. So that's not a problem. We actually need to move that to the NOTICE file for the next release. So the only real issue here that we have included your work without attributing your copyright. So the question is: are you happy for us to ship a release without the copyright notice for your work? This is entirely up to you. There is no legal requirement for us to do so unless you force us to. Thanks, -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater I am pretty clear on what I am uncomfortable. ie either that some docs are not licensed correctly or the information in the notice file is missing. This shadow zone is a problem when we are speaking about relicensing in a business product. I would be more comfortable if we are strict about that. - benoit -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Dirkjan, I am not going to discuss this any longer. This is your call. :) Check out this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html Specifically, the sections: Treatment of Third-Party Works NOTICE file Also, this: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html Specifically these bits: Many of these licenses have specific attribution terms that need to be adhered to, for example CC-A, often by adding them to the NOTICE file. (i.e. We only have to put stuff in NOTICE when compelled to do so by the license.) This is further expanded on, in this comment: When a release contains third party works, the licenses covering those works may ask that consumers are informed in certain specific fashions. These third party notices vary from license to license. Apache releases should contain a copy of each license, usually contained in the LICENSE document. For many licenses this is a sufficient notice. For some licenses some additional notice is required. In many cases, this will be included within the dependent artifact. Now, check the terms of the Apache License 2.0 itself: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html Specifically, this bit: You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and Note the following facts: * Benoit's original work has no copyright notice, so we have not removed anything. And there is nothing for us to retain. * Benoit's work has been licensed to us under the terms of the Apache License 2.0, so we are free to include it. * Adding an attribution for Benoit's work is good practice, but I think it's a should and not a must. You have enough votes to do the release, if you feel comfortable with it. If you do not, you have two primary options: * Take this to legal-disc...@apache.org, where you can get a definitive thumbs up or thumbs down. This could take a few days. And you may only get advice, not a definitive decision. * Re-cut the release, fix the issues, and ask everyone to vote again. On 14 October 2013 12:08, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: On 14 October 2013 12:04, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: also not my +0. i am not saying a blocking issue. However i do think that this issue is important . We should be really strict about that preserving the spirit of our license. Please be clear about what you mean when you say the spirit of our license. Can you describe in concrete terms anything about the current situation that is not in the spirit of our license? make sure that our code can be reused by anyone without worrying too much about license and patent issues. - benoit -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
(I have actually convinced myself while sourcing that that we do not even need to attribute Christopher or Benoit in NOTICE. The only time we should be moving stuff to NOTICE is when we find copyright statements in the original works. Neither Christopher's blog post or Benoit's protocol draft have such notices. And so any attribution we make is for convenience only.) On 14 October 2013 12:18, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: Dirkjan, I am not going to discuss this any longer. This is your call. :) Check out this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html Specifically, the sections: Treatment of Third-Party Works NOTICE file Also, this: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html Specifically these bits: Many of these licenses have specific attribution terms that need to be adhered to, for example CC-A, often by adding them to the NOTICE file. (i.e. We only have to put stuff in NOTICE when compelled to do so by the license.) This is further expanded on, in this comment: When a release contains third party works, the licenses covering those works may ask that consumers are informed in certain specific fashions. These third party notices vary from license to license. Apache releases should contain a copy of each license, usually contained in the LICENSE document. For many licenses this is a sufficient notice. For some licenses some additional notice is required. In many cases, this will be included within the dependent artifact. Now, check the terms of the Apache License 2.0 itself: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html Specifically, this bit: You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and Note the following facts: * Benoit's original work has no copyright notice, so we have not removed anything. And there is nothing for us to retain. * Benoit's work has been licensed to us under the terms of the Apache License 2.0, so we are free to include it. * Adding an attribution for Benoit's work is good practice, but I think it's a should and not a must. You have enough votes to do the release, if you feel comfortable with it. If you do not, you have two primary options: * Take this to legal-disc...@apache.org, where you can get a definitive thumbs up or thumbs down. This could take a few days. And you may only get advice, not a definitive decision. * Re-cut the release, fix the issues, and ask everyone to vote again. On 14 October 2013 12:08, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: On 14 October 2013 12:04, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: also not my +0. i am not saying a blocking issue. However i do think that this issue is important . We should be really strict about that preserving the spirit of our license. Please be clear about what you mean when you say the spirit of our license. Can you describe in concrete terms anything about the current situation that is not in the spirit of our license? make sure that our code can be reused by anyone without worrying too much about license and patent issues. - benoit -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
* Convenience, completeness, and politeness — is what I really meant :) On 14 October 2013 12:21, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: (I have actually convinced myself while sourcing that that we do not even need to attribute Christopher or Benoit in NOTICE. The only time we should be moving stuff to NOTICE is when we find copyright statements in the original works. Neither Christopher's blog post or Benoit's protocol draft have such notices. And so any attribution we make is for convenience only.) On 14 October 2013 12:18, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: Dirkjan, I am not going to discuss this any longer. This is your call. :) Check out this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html Specifically, the sections: Treatment of Third-Party Works NOTICE file Also, this: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html Specifically these bits: Many of these licenses have specific attribution terms that need to be adhered to, for example CC-A, often by adding them to the NOTICE file. (i.e. We only have to put stuff in NOTICE when compelled to do so by the license.) This is further expanded on, in this comment: When a release contains third party works, the licenses covering those works may ask that consumers are informed in certain specific fashions. These third party notices vary from license to license. Apache releases should contain a copy of each license, usually contained in the LICENSE document. For many licenses this is a sufficient notice. For some licenses some additional notice is required. In many cases, this will be included within the dependent artifact. Now, check the terms of the Apache License 2.0 itself: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html Specifically, this bit: You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and Note the following facts: * Benoit's original work has no copyright notice, so we have not removed anything. And there is nothing for us to retain. * Benoit's work has been licensed to us under the terms of the Apache License 2.0, so we are free to include it. * Adding an attribution for Benoit's work is good practice, but I think it's a should and not a must. You have enough votes to do the release, if you feel comfortable with it. If you do not, you have two primary options: * Take this to legal-disc...@apache.org, where you can get a definitive thumbs up or thumbs down. This could take a few days. And you may only get advice, not a definitive decision. * Re-cut the release, fix the issues, and ask everyone to vote again. On 14 October 2013 12:08, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.orgwrote: On 14 October 2013 12:04, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: also not my +0. i am not saying a blocking issue. However i do think that this issue is important . We should be really strict about that preserving the spirit of our license. Please be clear about what you mean when you say the spirit of our license. Can you describe in concrete terms anything about the current situation that is not in the spirit of our license? make sure that our code can be reused by anyone without worrying too much about license and patent issues. - benoit -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: You have enough votes to do the release, if you feel comfortable with it. Thanks, that's a very helpful summary! I'm comfortable with it. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Great, thanks! On 14 October 2013 12:41, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: You have enough votes to do the release, if you feel comfortable with it. Thanks, that's a very helpful summary! I'm comfortable with it. Cheers, Dirkjan -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: Benoit, just to address your concerns, the way copyright works is that if you don't grant permissions, copyright is in effect in full force. So the lack of our documenting the licences, in the worst case, might mean that you do not have the permission to redistribute, and so on. (Certainly not that you have permission to do anything you like.) But of course, we've verified that from a legal perspective, these files are perfectly fine and we can distribute them in accordance with our third-party licensing policy. So the issue is theoretical only. If someone was to spot the file, and wonder what the license is, they could ask us, and we could point them to the mailing list posts, and say it's fine, and sorry for the bug, we'll fix it in the next release. The main problem here is that some contents are under different licenses like the one for the replication protocol. This is what I'm worried about. Legally these contents are under the license the author put them until it is specifically mentioned differently in the notice. This is how copyright work. - benoit On 11 October 2013 05:07, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: +0 I do think we should fixe the license notices before we release. If not we open the door to some people to use it like they want and derive work on top of it. - benoit On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
sign ok sigs ok tree ok +1 R15B01 / Ubuntu 13.04 x64 / spidermonkey 1.8.5 On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan -- Octavian Damiean GitHub: https://github.com/mainerror
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On 11 Oct 2013, at 2:25 AM, Dave Cottlehuber d...@jsonified.com wrote: sign ok sigs ok tree ok +1 R14B04 / Windows 8 x64 Enterprise N (N for not used much these days) R16B02 / OSX 10.8.5 Menial Lichen (or something like that) spidermonkey 1.8.5 on both. OSX subcomponents via current brew. Futon looks A.M.A.Z.I.N.G. as do the upgraded docs, thanks everybody I think you mean Fauxton. Futon still looks the same. Unless Dave this is your first time using Futon :) who worked on this! A+ Dave On 9 October 2013 21:26, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Benoit, just to address your concerns, the way copyright works is that if you don't grant permissions, copyright is in effect in full force. So the lack of our documenting the licences, in the worst case, might mean that you do not have the permission to redistribute, and so on. (Certainly not that you have permission to do anything you like.) But of course, we've verified that from a legal perspective, these files are perfectly fine and we can distribute them in accordance with our third-party licensing policy. So the issue is theoretical only. If someone was to spot the file, and wonder what the license is, they could ask us, and we could point them to the mailing list posts, and say it's fine, and sorry for the bug, we'll fix it in the next release. On 11 October 2013 05:07, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: +0 I do think we should fixe the license notices before we release. If not we open the door to some people to use it like they want and derive work on top of it. - benoit On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Hi, make distcheck worked, verify installation worked and Fauxton ran at /_utils/fauxton. I'm +1. Mac OSX 10.8.5 Erlang R16B02 I'm also +1 for new Fauxton. Excited to get it out there. Cheers Garren On 10 Oct 2013, at 3:17 AM, Lars Gierth lars.gie...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, looking forward to the release, congrats to everybody involved! Had a look at Fauxton for the first time, really great work! +1 Ubuntu 13.04 Erlang R15B01 gpg: OK md5sum: OK sha1sum: OK diff: OK ./configure: OK make distcheck: OK make install: OK verify installation: OK 2013/10/9 Andy Wenk a...@nms.de on Mac OS X 10.8.5 Build 12F37 Erlang R16B01 gpg --verify: OK md5sum --check: OK sha1sum --check: OK diff -r apache-couchdb-VERSION ../tree: healthy output received ./configure: no errors make distcheck: == apache-couchdb-1.5.0 archives ready for distribution: apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz == make install: OK http://127.0.0.1:5984/_utils/ : works! Verify Your Installation.Your installation looks fine. Time to Relax. +1 congrats ;-) On 9 October 2013 22:15, Sue deathbearbr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I've never tested one of these before. I followed the test procedure. I didn't get any errors when I ran make distcheck so I got it installed. So for me it seems to be all good. +1 I tested Fauxton. +10 for Fauxton On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan -- Andy Wenk Hamburg - Germany RockIt! CouchDB - Das Praxisbuch für Entwickler und Administratoren http://www.galileocomputing.de/2462 http://www.couchdb-buch.de PostgreSQL 8.4: Das Praxisbuch http://www.galileocomputing.de/2008 http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: OpenPGP.js v.1.20130712 Comment: http://openpgpjs.org xo0EUeJpHgED/34kUBUQNNT+3fcc621CLjzQZsuwYajo7Pj1hxtTcPbOo6Ci UbyGOlIhlSDBaiXGXsFKxtdp4z/os7NdFQstzh6QpHzppjbGzGkv/om49jJM SYLYkXyMDquhEQO47ovgOQUwJeO5qSzKE5fxftJQUjzHY1K673aA9D80uREM Jc1tABEBAAHNF0FuZHkgV2VuayA8YW5keUBubXMuZGU+wpwEEAEIABAFAlHi aR8JEAhxaGu1XIB2AAAfuAP/ZJXbv5wxAGCPridI/8Za9fXcccM0GmsG5ciH bkhE9bakLlexclv3Jb+iQ2Cyp2FFo1wzLSADRRMEz1EvFFUoDo/Wj2SUQnaq LNA8tKkRBuW0tUf88aK66TcdRINghhAcEqVJtwRIXF7fI5Arv6N+ql8heD3O 4/jA6c/8iExS0dE= =6ftE -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Everything checks out. +1 Best Jan -- On Oct 9, 2013, at 21:26 , Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Sigs: OK Hashes: OK Diff: Ok Scan: OK Installation: OK The NOTICE and LICENSE files have some errors in them, relating to imported docs. NOTICE: * httpdomain.py I think we can shorten this URL. No need for it to be the precise location of the file. * views/intro.rst views/nosql.rst views/pagination.rst The copyright here should be attributed to myself, Jan, and J. Chris. LICENSE: No license file for: externals.rst protocol.rst views/intro.rst views/nosql.rst views/pagination.rst joins.rst The licenses for those files are: externals.rst http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ protocol.rst *NO EXPLICIT LICENSE* I have asked Benoit to to license this to us on another thread. views/intro.rst views/nosql.rst views/pagination.rst Creative Commons Attribution joins.rst *NO EXPLICIT LICENSE* I have asked Christopher to to license this to us on another thread. share/doc/src/couchapp/views/joins.rst The copyright notice in here for Christopher's work should be moved to NOTICE. (Which is where all copyright notices must be moved.) I am -1 on this release until we get explicit licenses for those two files. If we get the licenses, I will remove my veto. No need to re-cut the release. The important thing here is that we have the legal right to distribute these files, and that our end users will have no problems using them, and re-distributing them. That's our primary responsibility. The documentation of that fact (in LICENSE, NOTICE, etc) is less critical, and so we can leave it for now, but we must fix these issues for the next release. On 9 October 2013 21:26, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Minor clarification: my -1 is not a veto. Releases are majority approval. But I am strongly against releasing an artefact before we have the documentation on the mailing lists (at the very least) that we have the legal right to do so. http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval On 10 October 2013 15:22, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: Sigs: OK Hashes: OK Diff: Ok Scan: OK Installation: OK The NOTICE and LICENSE files have some errors in them, relating to imported docs. NOTICE: * httpdomain.py I think we can shorten this URL. No need for it to be the precise location of the file. * views/intro.rst views/nosql.rst views/pagination.rst The copyright here should be attributed to myself, Jan, and J. Chris. LICENSE: No license file for: externals.rst protocol.rst views/intro.rst views/nosql.rst views/pagination.rst joins.rst The licenses for those files are: externals.rst http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ protocol.rst *NO EXPLICIT LICENSE* I have asked Benoit to to license this to us on another thread. views/intro.rst views/nosql.rst views/pagination.rst Creative Commons Attribution joins.rst *NO EXPLICIT LICENSE* I have asked Christopher to to license this to us on another thread. share/doc/src/couchapp/views/joins.rst The copyright notice in here for Christopher's work should be moved to NOTICE. (Which is where all copyright notices must be moved.) I am -1 on this release until we get explicit licenses for those two files. If we get the licenses, I will remove my veto. No need to re-cut the release. The important thing here is that we have the legal right to distribute these files, and that our end users will have no problems using them, and re-distributing them. That's our primary responsibility. The documentation of that fact (in LICENSE, NOTICE, etc) is less critical, and so we can leave it for now, but we must fix these issues for the next release. On 9 October 2013 21:26, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Oh, to add to mine: OSX 10.8.5 Erlang R15B03 On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: Minor clarification: my -1 is not a veto. Releases are majority approval. But I am strongly against releasing an artefact before we have the documentation on the mailing lists (at the very least) that we have the legal right to do so. http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval On 10 October 2013 15:22, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: Sigs: OK Hashes: OK Diff: Ok Scan: OK Installation: OK The NOTICE and LICENSE files have some errors in them, relating to imported docs. NOTICE: * httpdomain.py I think we can shorten this URL. No need for it to be the precise location of the file. * views/intro.rst views/nosql.rst views/pagination.rst The copyright here should be attributed to myself, Jan, and J. Chris. LICENSE: No license file for: externals.rst protocol.rst views/intro.rst views/nosql.rst views/pagination.rst joins.rst The licenses for those files are: externals.rst http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ protocol.rst *NO EXPLICIT LICENSE* I have asked Benoit to to license this to us on another thread. views/intro.rst views/nosql.rst views/pagination.rst Creative Commons Attribution joins.rst *NO EXPLICIT LICENSE* I have asked Christopher to to license this to us on another thread. share/doc/src/couchapp/views/joins.rst The copyright notice in here for Christopher's work should be moved to NOTICE. (Which is where all copyright notices must be moved.) I am -1 on this release until we get explicit licenses for those two files. If we get the licenses, I will remove my veto. No need to re-cut the release. The important thing here is that we have the legal right to distribute these files, and that our end users will have no problems using them, and re-distributing them. That's our primary responsibility. The documentation of that fact (in LICENSE, NOTICE, etc) is less critical, and so we can leave it for now, but we must fix these issues for the next release. On 9 October 2013 21:26, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Ubuntu 13.10 sigs: ok distcheck: ok verify install: ok +1 On 9 October 2013 20:26, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Okay, we've received licensing for those two files via the mailing list now. I am changing my vote from -1 to -0. (i.e. The problems are still problems, but I wont block the release.) On 10 October 2013 18:40, Matt Goodall matt.good...@gmail.com wrote: Ubuntu 13.10 sigs: ok distcheck: ok verify install: ok +1 On 9 October 2013 20:26, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: (i.e. The problems are still problems, but I wont block the release.) Thanks for the quick action. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Hashes ok Tests ok Distcheck ok Fauxton ok Plugins: not ok. There are hashes only for 1.4.0 release, which are embed directly into plugins.html page. So even if we announce this feature only for developers, they still has no way to see working example in action and may be a bit confused. However, I'm not sure how to set valid hash for the release that is not released yet (: +0.999(9) Gentoo Linux, Erlang 16B01, Spidermonkey 1.8.5 -- ,,,^..^,,, On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: (i.e. The problems are still problems, but I wont block the release.) Thanks for the quick action. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Oct 10, 2013, at 22:22 , Alexander Shorin kxe...@gmail.com wrote: Hashes ok Tests ok Distcheck ok Fauxton ok Plugins: not ok. There are hashes only for 1.4.0 release, which are embed directly into plugins.html page. So even if we announce this feature only for developers, they still has no way to see working example in action and may be a bit confused. However, I'm not sure how to set valid hash for the release that is not released yet (: Good point Alex, let me explain :) plugins.html is a dev-preview (it actually can’t work because I don’t have a legal 1.5.0 to build against before we compile the tarball), so this “not working” is not an issue for the release. I’m already thinking about how to present this best in the release announcement and related documentation. But that should not hold the release. Best Jan -- +0.999(9) Gentoo Linux, Erlang 16B01, Spidermonkey 1.8.5 -- ,,,^..^,,, On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: (i.e. The problems are still problems, but I wont block the release.) Thanks for the quick action. Cheers, Dirkjan signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org wrote: On Oct 10, 2013, at 22:22 , Alexander Shorin kxe...@gmail.com wrote: Hashes ok Tests ok Distcheck ok Fauxton ok Plugins: not ok. There are hashes only for 1.4.0 release, which are embed directly into plugins.html page. So even if we announce this feature only for developers, they still has no way to see working example in action and may be a bit confused. However, I'm not sure how to set valid hash for the release that is not released yet (: Good point Alex, let me explain :) plugins.html is a dev-preview (it actually can’t work because I don’t have a legal 1.5.0 to build against before we compile the tarball), so this “not working” is not an issue for the release. I’m already thinking about how to present this best in the release announcement and related documentation. But that should not hold the release. Thanks Jan! Ok, then +1 from me (: -- ,,,^..^,,,
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
sign ok sigs ok tree ok +1 R14B04 / Windows 8 x64 Enterprise N (N for not used much these days) R16B02 / OSX 10.8.5 Menial Lichen (or something like that) spidermonkey 1.8.5 on both. OSX subcomponents via current brew. Futon looks A.M.A.Z.I.N.G. as do the upgraded docs, thanks everybody who worked on this! A+ Dave On 9 October 2013 21:26, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Hi, I've never tested one of these before. I followed the test procedure. I didn't get any errors when I ran make distcheck so I got it installed. So for me it seems to be all good. +1 I tested Fauxton. +10 for Fauxton On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
on Mac OS X 10.8.5 Build 12F37 Erlang R16B01 gpg --verify: OK md5sum --check: OK sha1sum --check: OK diff -r apache-couchdb-VERSION ../tree: healthy output received ./configure: no errors make distcheck: == apache-couchdb-1.5.0 archives ready for distribution: apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz == make install: OK http://127.0.0.1:5984/_utils/ : works! Verify Your Installation.Your installation looks fine. Time to Relax. +1 congrats ;-) On 9 October 2013 22:15, Sue deathbearbr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I've never tested one of these before. I followed the test procedure. I didn't get any errors when I ran make distcheck so I got it installed. So for me it seems to be all good. +1 I tested Fauxton. +10 for Fauxton On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan -- Andy Wenk Hamburg - Germany RockIt! CouchDB - Das Praxisbuch für Entwickler und Administratoren http://www.galileocomputing.de/2462 http://www.couchdb-buch.de PostgreSQL 8.4: Das Praxisbuch http://www.galileocomputing.de/2008 http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: OpenPGP.js v.1.20130712 Comment: http://openpgpjs.org xo0EUeJpHgED/34kUBUQNNT+3fcc621CLjzQZsuwYajo7Pj1hxtTcPbOo6Ci UbyGOlIhlSDBaiXGXsFKxtdp4z/os7NdFQstzh6QpHzppjbGzGkv/om49jJM SYLYkXyMDquhEQO47ovgOQUwJeO5qSzKE5fxftJQUjzHY1K673aA9D80uREM Jc1tABEBAAHNF0FuZHkgV2VuayA8YW5keUBubXMuZGU+wpwEEAEIABAFAlHi aR8JEAhxaGu1XIB2AAAfuAP/ZJXbv5wxAGCPridI/8Za9fXcccM0GmsG5ciH bkhE9bakLlexclv3Jb+iQ2Cyp2FFo1wzLSADRRMEz1EvFFUoDo/Wj2SUQnaq LNA8tKkRBuW0tUf88aK66TcdRINghhAcEqVJtwRIXF7fI5Arv6N+ql8heD3O 4/jA6c/8iExS0dE= =6ftE -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Hi, looking forward to the release, congrats to everybody involved! Had a look at Fauxton for the first time, really great work! +1 Ubuntu 13.04 Erlang R15B01 gpg: OK md5sum: OK sha1sum: OK diff: OK ./configure: OK make distcheck: OK make install: OK verify installation: OK 2013/10/9 Andy Wenk a...@nms.de on Mac OS X 10.8.5 Build 12F37 Erlang R16B01 gpg --verify: OK md5sum --check: OK sha1sum --check: OK diff -r apache-couchdb-VERSION ../tree: healthy output received ./configure: no errors make distcheck: == apache-couchdb-1.5.0 archives ready for distribution: apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz == make install: OK http://127.0.0.1:5984/_utils/ : works! Verify Your Installation.Your installation looks fine. Time to Relax. +1 congrats ;-) On 9 October 2013 22:15, Sue deathbearbr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I've never tested one of these before. I followed the test procedure. I didn't get any errors when I ran make distcheck so I got it installed. So for me it seems to be all good. +1 I tested Fauxton. +10 for Fauxton On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@apache.org wrote: Dear community, I would like to release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2, which, unlike rc1, includes the fauxton sources. Changes since last round: * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.5.x We encourage the whole community to download and test these release artefacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so get stuck in! The release artefacts we are voting on are available here: wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.asc wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.ish wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.md5 wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz.sha Please follow the test procedure here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure Please remember that rc.2 is an annotation. If the vote passes, these artefacts will be released as Apache CouchDB 1.5.0. Please cast your votes now. Thanks, Dirkjan -- Andy Wenk Hamburg - Germany RockIt! CouchDB - Das Praxisbuch für Entwickler und Administratoren http://www.galileocomputing.de/2462 http://www.couchdb-buch.de PostgreSQL 8.4: Das Praxisbuch http://www.galileocomputing.de/2008 http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: OpenPGP.js v.1.20130712 Comment: http://openpgpjs.org xo0EUeJpHgED/34kUBUQNNT+3fcc621CLjzQZsuwYajo7Pj1hxtTcPbOo6Ci UbyGOlIhlSDBaiXGXsFKxtdp4z/os7NdFQstzh6QpHzppjbGzGkv/om49jJM SYLYkXyMDquhEQO47ovgOQUwJeO5qSzKE5fxftJQUjzHY1K673aA9D80uREM Jc1tABEBAAHNF0FuZHkgV2VuayA8YW5keUBubXMuZGU+wpwEEAEIABAFAlHi aR8JEAhxaGu1XIB2AAAfuAP/ZJXbv5wxAGCPridI/8Za9fXcccM0GmsG5ciH bkhE9bakLlexclv3Jb+iQ2Cyp2FFo1wzLSADRRMEz1EvFFUoDo/Wj2SUQnaq LNA8tKkRBuW0tUf88aK66TcdRINghhAcEqVJtwRIXF7fI5Arv6N+ql8heD3O 4/jA6c/8iExS0dE= =6ftE -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
