RE: [VOTE] Release Rya (Incubating) version 3.2.11 RC2

The release candidate builds and the tests pass. The sigs and hashes all check out. I say we address the unsavory license issues before the next release. This release was a good opportunity to conduct an audit of where we are at from a dependency/licensing point of view. As long as we docume

Re: [VOTE] Release Rya (Incubating) version 3.2.11 RC2

-1 (binding) The incorporation of bad licensing has the potential to limit where Rya can be deployed. I would like to see following addressed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RYA-372 Replace org.json:json library with a compatibly licensed alternative https://issues.apache.org/jira/brow

Re: third party licenses examined for 3.2.11 RC2

We have a Jira for these: RYA-373 - Benchmarks: JMH library cannot be distributed, make optional or replace RYA-372 - Replace org.json:json library with a compatibly licensed alternative HSQLDB is alrea

Re: third party licenses examined for 3.2.11 RC2

I vote to make benchmarks optional. Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 14, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > > By the letter of the law, you don't have to resolve license conflicts until > you graduate from the Incubator. > > However, the process of identifying bad licensing, finding suitable

Re: third party licenses examined for 3.2.11 RC2

By the letter of the law, you don't have to resolve license conflicts until you graduate from the Incubator. However, the process of identifying bad licensing, finding suitable replacements, and implementing such changes shows a _lot_ of maturity from the community (as this is a very real prob

Re: third party licenses examined for 3.2.11 RC2

​Here is my completed analysis of our third party licenses. Result: We have two Licenses not allowed for Apache projects. See the bottom. The question is, is this a blocker for the release? Can we make a Jira task to fix for the next version? One of them: JSON, just switched to category X aft