Re: [RESULT] (Was: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2)
When I unzip the file, the Apache CouchDB app claims it's from Aug 29th, 3:05pm. I can't tell if that's my fault somehow, or from the .zip file. However, it opens fine, shows 1.5.0 as the version, and verify install works fine. ISTR binaries don't get voted on, so instead of +1 I'll just say: \o/ Cheers, Eli On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > > On Oct 14, 2013, at 22:13 , Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Noah Slater > wrote: > >> Are the binaries ready? > >> > >> We usually prepare them before announcing the release. > > > > Ah yes, sorry. > > > > Jan, Dave, what are your schedules like this week? > > > Contrary to previous statements, I had time to make a Mac build tonight. > > Here’s the files: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/ > > Best > Jan > -- > >
Re: [RESULT] (Was: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2)
On Oct 14, 2013, at 22:13 , Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Noah Slater wrote: >> Are the binaries ready? >> >> We usually prepare them before announcing the release. > > Ah yes, sorry. > > Jan, Dave, what are your schedules like this week? Contrary to previous statements, I had time to make a Mac build tonight. Here’s the files: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/ Best Jan -- signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
svn commit: r3261 - in /release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0: ./ Apache-CouchDB.zip Apache-CouchDB.zip.asc Apache-CouchDB.zip.md5 Apache-CouchDB.zip.sha
Author: jan Date: Mon Oct 14 21:40:24 2013 New Revision: 3261 Log: 1.5.0 Mac binaries Added: release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/ release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip (with props) release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip.asc release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip.md5 release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip.sha Added: release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip == Binary file - no diff available. Propchange: release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip -- svn:mime-type = application/octet-stream Added: release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip.asc == --- release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip.asc (added) +++ release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip.asc Mon Oct 14 21:40:24 2013 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- +Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (Darwin) + +iQIcBAABCgAGBQJSXGBlAAoJENnuAeR4Uq7kucYP/2xbOQ+xJBx3omTApo7xPJKn +DNblHrTPtwif6DqNbEH2ZawPjgytLWh1f9qu1vGEojKagGifcFKlx3Y30gL9qJ8k +nwn602mkX2M321AleQhLikLycEsFZjYRW/TkfFhJB7q+nr9LmKAqKaNWcYvujWqr +ioiALjmG7vxUfVKI/zxK4pQFr7JNxrY/kIx3TTkndNJ3pahIp5AS+SrUze/Uo/Ex +ZRa8WdBpdgYJYSYJoBs7tINX62uxbTNYbHl0xxIBMsFlC/aRr4GX64TIGLJkrdGB +hFJma9NA3Lj3d/xtBxqUB4lhgcaox25gd0OOogm2vuCma4lcsDvq1wW14cV4pc11 +jugkCrlOD+8SWh2eLtijd4psSEvncvx/UhEW068PVsj/3xpCxnvgSc8e66ZMrsWe +QHdAX+TUm8ghi0eBYIS8g0bZMpJxzNoIvYPupO8BvgnD9HDGkYXqiFlaRHSXUwTQ +JxG/CK6z5X3YjzyG8KSoTq00vRr34iacJSQQJqr1EL8e36tAYftsVrzLIR9f/c37 +NXl5vEb+XKU2Av7B2z5nJ8PWNLVGwEhKUli8nxhM1Su/rlkFAF3mEAs1rYvIcpkr +Ck6PJdu7J90Qm3Zx7g90L20qAtLbrPt69FzdtFoFhHIBWfjCmaq+NlqVxDyH9kz/ +ZDrjvQqi3nGcmChOVIp1 +=qp+7 +-END PGP SIGNATURE- Added: release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip.md5 == --- release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip.md5 (added) +++ release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip.md5 Mon Oct 14 21:40:24 2013 @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +91cad7854db5977412bf67fc4198eac6 Apache-CouchDB.zip Added: release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip.sha == --- release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip.sha (added) +++ release/couchdb/binary/mac/1.5.0/Apache-CouchDB.zip.sha Mon Oct 14 21:40:24 2013 @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +02599e10455f8a22853fe5feaab3458f3a6f2eaa Apache-CouchDB.zip
Re: start translation of the docs into German language
On 14 October 2013 21:18, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > +100 to all of this :D > > Great initiative Andy! > > Let me know if you need any help :) > > Best > Jan > thanks Jan ;-) I need to find time to checkout the build process and need to work into Sphinx ... I'll let you know how my progress is and also if I need a "hand" :-) Cheers Andy > -- > > On Oct 12, 2013, at 21:31 , Andy Wenk wrote: > > > Hi Octavian, > > > > actually it's just me ;-). I thought the same like you - since there is > now > > this awesome documentation, we should translate it. I want to let the > stone > > roll with my post. If there are already people you know, you can point > them > > to me. I guess we need to setup all this very concise - especially the > > translation process - to encourage people to participate. So this is just > > the starting point now. Finally, more people will use CouchDB ;-) > > > > What do you think about having an own translation list and a public place > > for topics regarding I18n ? > > > > Cheers > > > > Andy > > > > > > On 12 October 2013 21:24, Octavian Damiean wrote: > > > >> Hello Andy, > >> > >> This is good news! I always wanted to start doing that but that was > before > >> Alexander put together our new awesome docs. Now that everything is > bundled > >> I believe it the time is right. > >> > >> Do you already have other people interested in translating or is it just > >> you so far? > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Andy Wenk wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> as the documentation has found it's way into Futon and after having met > >> Jan > >>> at JSConf.eu with a short talk about how to participate in the > project, I > >>> am thinking about starting to translate the docs into German. I > >> understood, > >>> that the documentation source files are placed in /share/doc/src . Am I > >>> right, that the only language available is English for now? If so, what > >>> would be a good idea to start with multilingual docs? An idea would be > to > >>> have > >>> > >>> /share/doc/src/en-GB > >>> /share/doc/src/de-DE > >>> > >>> and so on. Any thoughts about this? > >>> > >>> Further more. What is the best way to compile the whole documentation? > Is > >>> there a best way to do or a good process? > >>> > >>> Any ideas and help is highly appreciated. > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Andy Wenk > >>> Hamburg - Germany > >>> RockIt! > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Octavian Damiean > >> > >> GitHub: https://github.com/mainerror > >> > > > > > > > > -- Andy Wenk Hamburg - Germany RockIt! -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: [RESULT] (Was: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2)
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Noah Slater wrote: > Are the binaries ready? > > We usually prepare them before announcing the release. Ah yes, sorry. Jan, Dave, what are your schedules like this week? Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [RESULT] (Was: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2)
Mac OS X binary isn’t, might not get to it tomorrow. On Oct 14, 2013, at 22:03 , Noah Slater wrote: > Are the binaries ready? > > We usually prepare them before announcing the release. > > Instructions here: > > http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Release_Procedure#Preparing_the_Binary_Packages > > (See also the steps just before that.) > > > On 14 October 2013 12:40, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > >> Dear community, >> >> The vote is now closed. I counted the following votes: >> >> Sue Lockwood: +1 >> Andy Wenk: +1 >> Lars Gierth: +1 >> Garren Smith: +1 >> Jan Lehnardt: +1 >> Noah Slater: -0 >> Matt Goodall: +1 >> Eric Ross: +1 >> Alexander Shorin: +1 >> Dave Cottlehuber: +1 >> Benoit Chesneau: +0 >> Octavian Damiean: +1 >> Klaus Trainer: +1 >> Ryan Ramage reported success >> >> Looks good enough for me! I'll be publishing the release in ~30h: >> >> >> http://arewemeetingyet.com/Amsterdam/2013-10-14/20:00/CouchDB%201.5.0%20release%20time >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dirkjan >> > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Summary of IRC meeting in #couchdb-meeting, Wed Oct 9 19:10:56 2013
Here we go: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general/42702 Best Jan -- On Oct 14, 2013, at 21:19 , Jan Lehnardt wrote: > Will do in a bit. > > Best > Jan > -- > > On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:01 , Noah Slater wrote: > >> Someone needs to call a vote now. >> >> >> On 14 October 2013 11:46, Benoit Chesneau wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 15:03 , Jan Lehnardt wrote: > > On Oct 10, 2013, at 14:58 , Benoit Chesneau >>> wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Noah Slater wrote: >> >>> Ah, sorry, the vote thread at gene...@incubator.apache.org, which is the >>> last gauntlet Benoit needs to go through. >>> >>> Basically, Benoit needs to commit his XML file to the Incubator >>> space, and >>> then get lazy consensus on it. >>> >> >> >> Well in the ip clearance template it says: >> >> IP Clearance processing must be executed either by an Officer >> or a Member of the ASF. If you are not an Officer or a Member, >> please contact your project chair who will find an appropriate >> volunteer. Incubator karma is also required. Please request >> karma from the incubator pmc if you do not have it. >> >> >> I am not a member of the ASF so it should be one of you. Jan proposed >>> to >> handle that. Or maybe I missed something? > > Yeah, it’s on my todo, sorry for the delay, I hope to get to it later today. Here we go: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1531072 Benoit, the final bit now, before we can call a vote on general@incubator.a.o is the software grant at http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt Can you fill that out and send a scan/photo to secret...@apache.org and legal-arch...@apache.org? >>> done this morning. >>> >>> - benoit >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Noah Slater >> https://twitter.com/nslater > signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [RESULT] (Was: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2)
Are the binaries ready? We usually prepare them before announcing the release. Instructions here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Release_Procedure#Preparing_the_Binary_Packages (See also the steps just before that.) On 14 October 2013 12:40, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > Dear community, > > The vote is now closed. I counted the following votes: > > Sue Lockwood: +1 > Andy Wenk: +1 > Lars Gierth: +1 > Garren Smith: +1 > Jan Lehnardt: +1 > Noah Slater: -0 > Matt Goodall: +1 > Eric Ross: +1 > Alexander Shorin: +1 > Dave Cottlehuber: +1 > Benoit Chesneau: +0 > Octavian Damiean: +1 > Klaus Trainer: +1 > Ryan Ramage reported success > > Looks good enough for me! I'll be publishing the release in ~30h: > > > http://arewemeetingyet.com/Amsterdam/2013-10-14/20:00/CouchDB%201.5.0%20release%20time > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan > -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: Summary of IRC meeting in #couchdb-meeting, Wed Oct 9 19:10:56 2013
Will do in a bit. Best Jan -- On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:01 , Noah Slater wrote: > Someone needs to call a vote now. > > > On 14 October 2013 11:46, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >> >>> >>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 15:03 , Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 14:58 , Benoit Chesneau >> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Noah Slater >>> wrote: > >> Ah, sorry, the vote thread at gene...@incubator.apache.org, which is >>> the >> last gauntlet Benoit needs to go through. >> >> Basically, Benoit needs to commit his XML file to the Incubator >> space, >>> and >> then get lazy consensus on it. >> > > > Well in the ip clearance template it says: > > IP Clearance processing must be executed either by an Officer > or a Member of the ASF. If you are not an Officer or a Member, > please contact your project chair who will find an appropriate > volunteer. Incubator karma is also required. Please request > karma from the incubator pmc if you do not have it. > > > I am not a member of the ASF so it should be one of you. Jan proposed >> to > handle that. Or maybe I missed something? Yeah, it’s on my todo, sorry for the delay, I hope to get to it later >>> today. >>> >>> Here we go: >>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1531072 >>> >>> Benoit, the final bit now, before we can call a vote on >>> general@incubator.a.o is the software grant at >>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt >>> >>> Can you fill that out and send a scan/photo to secret...@apache.org and >>> legal-arch...@apache.org? >>> >>> >>> >> done this morning. >> >> - benoit >> > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: start translation of the docs into German language
+100 to all of this :D Great initiative Andy! Let me know if you need any help :) Best Jan -- On Oct 12, 2013, at 21:31 , Andy Wenk wrote: > Hi Octavian, > > actually it's just me ;-). I thought the same like you - since there is now > this awesome documentation, we should translate it. I want to let the stone > roll with my post. If there are already people you know, you can point them > to me. I guess we need to setup all this very concise - especially the > translation process - to encourage people to participate. So this is just > the starting point now. Finally, more people will use CouchDB ;-) > > What do you think about having an own translation list and a public place > for topics regarding I18n ? > > Cheers > > Andy > > > On 12 October 2013 21:24, Octavian Damiean wrote: > >> Hello Andy, >> >> This is good news! I always wanted to start doing that but that was before >> Alexander put together our new awesome docs. Now that everything is bundled >> I believe it the time is right. >> >> Do you already have other people interested in translating or is it just >> you so far? >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Andy Wenk wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> as the documentation has found it's way into Futon and after having met >> Jan >>> at JSConf.eu with a short talk about how to participate in the project, I >>> am thinking about starting to translate the docs into German. I >> understood, >>> that the documentation source files are placed in /share/doc/src . Am I >>> right, that the only language available is English for now? If so, what >>> would be a good idea to start with multilingual docs? An idea would be to >>> have >>> >>> /share/doc/src/en-GB >>> /share/doc/src/de-DE >>> >>> and so on. Any thoughts about this? >>> >>> Further more. What is the best way to compile the whole documentation? Is >>> there a best way to do or a good process? >>> >>> Any ideas and help is highly appreciated. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Andy Wenk >>> Hamburg - Germany >>> RockIt! >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Octavian Damiean >> >> GitHub: https://github.com/mainerror >> > > > > -- > 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- signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Great, thanks! On 14 October 2013 12:41, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Noah Slater 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 Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Noah Slater 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
[RESULT] (Was: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2)
Dear community, The vote is now closed. I counted the following votes: Sue Lockwood: +1 Andy Wenk: +1 Lars Gierth: +1 Garren Smith: +1 Jan Lehnardt: +1 Noah Slater: -0 Matt Goodall: +1 Eric Ross: +1 Alexander Shorin: +1 Dave Cottlehuber: +1 Benoit Chesneau: +0 Octavian Damiean: +1 Klaus Trainer: +1 Ryan Ramage reported success Looks good enough for me! I'll be publishing the release in ~30h: http://arewemeetingyet.com/Amsterdam/2013-10-14/20:00/CouchDB%201.5.0%20release%20time Cheers, Dirkjan
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 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 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 wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Noah Slater wrote: >>> On 14 October 2013 12:04, Benoit Chesneau 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
(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 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 wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Noah Slater wrote: >> >>> On 14 October 2013 12:04, Benoit Chesneau 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
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 wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Noah Slater wrote: > >> On 14 October 2013 12:04, Benoit Chesneau 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
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Noah Slater 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 wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Noah Slater 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 wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Noah Slater wrote: > > > > On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau 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
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 wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Noah Slater 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 wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Noah Slater wrote: >>> On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau 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 wrote: > On 14 October 2013 12:04, Benoit Chesneau 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 12:04 PM, Noah Slater 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 wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Noah Slater wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau 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 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, 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 wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Noah Slater wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau 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
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 wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Noah Slater wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau 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: Summary of IRC meeting in #couchdb-meeting, Wed Oct 9 19:10:56 2013
Someone needs to call a vote now. On 14 October 2013 11:46, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 2013, at 15:03 , Jan Lehnardt wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2013, at 14:58 , Benoit Chesneau > wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Noah Slater > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Ah, sorry, the vote thread at gene...@incubator.apache.org, which is > > the > > >>> last gauntlet Benoit needs to go through. > > >>> > > >>> Basically, Benoit needs to commit his XML file to the Incubator > space, > > and > > >>> then get lazy consensus on it. > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> Well in the ip clearance template it says: > > >> > > >> IP Clearance processing must be executed either by an Officer > > >> or a Member of the ASF. If you are not an Officer or a Member, > > >> please contact your project chair who will find an appropriate > > >> volunteer. Incubator karma is also required. Please request > > >> karma from the incubator pmc if you do not have it. > > >> > > >> > > >> I am not a member of the ASF so it should be one of you. Jan proposed > to > > >> handle that. Or maybe I missed something? > > > > > > Yeah, it’s on my todo, sorry for the delay, I hope to get to it later > > today. > > > > Here we go: > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1531072 > > > > Benoit, the final bit now, before we can call a vote on > > general@incubator.a.o is the software grant at > > http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt > > > > Can you fill that out and send a scan/photo to secret...@apache.org and > > legal-arch...@apache.org? > > > > > > > done this morning. > > - benoit > -- 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 wrote: > > > > On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau 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
On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau 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: Summary of IRC meeting in #couchdb-meeting, Wed Oct 9 19:10:56 2013
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > > On Oct 10, 2013, at 15:03 , Jan Lehnardt wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 2013, at 14:58 , Benoit Chesneau wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Noah Slater > wrote: > >> > >>> Ah, sorry, the vote thread at gene...@incubator.apache.org, which is > the > >>> last gauntlet Benoit needs to go through. > >>> > >>> Basically, Benoit needs to commit his XML file to the Incubator space, > and > >>> then get lazy consensus on it. > >>> > >> > >> > >> Well in the ip clearance template it says: > >> > >> IP Clearance processing must be executed either by an Officer > >> or a Member of the ASF. If you are not an Officer or a Member, > >> please contact your project chair who will find an appropriate > >> volunteer. Incubator karma is also required. Please request > >> karma from the incubator pmc if you do not have it. > >> > >> > >> I am not a member of the ASF so it should be one of you. Jan proposed to > >> handle that. Or maybe I missed something? > > > > Yeah, it’s on my todo, sorry for the delay, I hope to get to it later > today. > > Here we go: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1531072 > > Benoit, the final bit now, before we can call a vote on > general@incubator.a.o is the software grant at > http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt > > Can you fill that out and send a scan/photo to secret...@apache.org and > legal-arch...@apache.org? > > > done this morning. - benoit
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Noah Slater 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. > > Benoit, we have lots and lots of components of CouchDB that are not under > the Apache license. This is not a problem. which one ? All of included code which have a specific license are specified in the NOTICE file. If not this is wrong. > 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. > 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. - benoit > > > On 14 October 2013 11:34, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Benoit Chesneau > > 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
> 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 wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Benoit Chesneau > 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 Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Benoit Chesneau 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: [PROPOSAL] Use Influitive to help with marketing
Okay, thanks for the feedback, and offers of help, everyone. I am going to let Influitive know we're moving forward with this. On 10 October 2013 13:55, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. < st...@meredrica.org> wrote: > I'm interested, followed the thread but never posted. :-) > > Noah Slater wrote: > >Okay, thanks Benoit! > > > >I agree that such things should be optional, and that if they work, we > >should look at ways of replicating their success in other areas of the > >project. > > > >The Influitive privacy policy is here: http://influitive.com/privacy/ > > > >"You may withdraw your permission for us to collect, use and disclose > >your > >personal data at any time, subject to legal and contractual > >restrictions > >and reasonable notice." > > > >"You have the right to ask whether we hold any personal information > >about > >you, to see that information, and to ask us to correct or update your > >information." > > > >I hope this answers your question. > > > >Unless there's no further objection, I will let Influitive know we have > >the > >green light to move forward. > > > >Once I've done that, they'll set us up with a hub, and I will invite > >people > >to be admins. Anyone is welcome. If you're already expressed an > >interest in > >this thread, I will reach out to you. If you haven't, let me know at > >any > >time. > > > > > >On 8 October 2013 18:55, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Noah Slater > >wrote: > >> > >> > Okay, some answers: > >> > > >> > - How to ensure this reward system is optional? > >> > > >> > I think we can experiment with the reward system. The default is > >just to > >> > award points for completing tasks. So you can have leader-boards > >within > >> > Influitive, and you can see who has the most points, etc. > >> > > >> > What we do with those points is how we experiment. I think the > >first step > >> > should be to offer some sort of public thanks, as I outline in my > >> proposal. > >> > Even a Twitter #FF would go a long way, I think. > >> > > >> > Secondly, I think we should experiment with allow people to > >exchange > >> points > >> > for swag. Perhaps this will be received positively, perhaps some > >people > >> > will complain. If it causes a problem, we remove it. > >> > > >> > > >> I think we should just make sure to propose the system as an option. > >> Otherwise such things looks OK for me Sort of achievements like in > >games in > >> fact. > >> > >> > >> > - How to ensure that people that not participate do not feel > >unconsidered > >> > by other members of the community because not rewarded by the > >Influtive > >> > system? > >> > > >> > I think you're right: we should recognise people who help out on > >JIRA, > >> and > >> > on the mailing lists, and so on. I think that's a worthwhile > >discussion > >> to > >> > have, but I don't think it blocks this work. In fact, perhaps we > >can look > >> > at what works for Influitive, and then try to replicate that in > >other > >> parts > >> > of the project. > >> > > >> > So, for example, if the Twitter promotion, or blog mentions, really > >work, > >> > and people like them, then perhaps in a few months, we have a > >> conversation > >> > about how to do the same sort of thing for people who contribute in > >other > >> > ways. > >> > > >> > The same can be said for swag too. Assuming I even find a budget > >for this > >> > (which I may not be able to do) then presumably we can extend that > >and > >> say > >> > thank you to other people with a t-shirt too. (Actually, recently, > >> Cloudant > >> > very kindly sent a t-shirt to committers at my suggestion. So that > >is one > >> > example of this. I assume you got yours, Benoit? I've been wearing > >mine!) > >> > > >> > I think it's important to consider the different types of people > >we're > >> > talking about here. As a core contributor, I really don't feel like > >I > >> need > >> > to be rewarded for my contributions. The community is enough of a > >reward > >> > for me. > >> > > >> > But Influtive is targeting people who may only be on the > >peripheries. > >> > People who have used CouchDB, love it, and will jump at the > >opportunity > >> to > >> > help out by telling their network about their experiences. And for > >that, > >> > sending them a pack of CouchDB stickers, or whatever, makes obvious > >> sense. > >> > We're trying to mobilise a volunteer workforce of people who will > >promote > >> > us! So let's give them the swag to do that! > >> > > >> > In fact, we might want to use that as a metric for what we give > >out. We > >> > could say, okay, we're only gonna give out swag that has some > >promotional > >> > value to the project. So in a way, it an extension of the > >initiative > >> > itself. People who are interested in marketing and promoting > >CouchDB will > >> > be rewarded with shipments of stickers, keyrings, etc, to help them > >with > >> > that. Perfect! > >> > > >> > >> > >> The thing is that some people
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > 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 wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Benoit Chesneau > 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 11:05 AM, Benoit Chesneau 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? Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Benoit Chesneau > wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Noah Slater 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. > > Can we reach consensus on this? I feel fine with both sides, so that > doesn't help. > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan > Dirkjan, 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
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
>On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Noah Slater 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. > >Can we reach consensus on this? I feel fine with both sides, so that >doesn't help. > >Cheers, > >Dirkjan > Good call. TL;DR: +0 http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html I didn't weight in earlier as I've got nothing directly useful to add. 1. I'm happy with the release "as is" given that we have acknowledged the licence issue already on the ML & the holders of that copyright have granted their consent. 2. If those holders request we roll another release to correct this issue, then I'd respect that wish. 3. overall I am +0 on this issue, I'm relaxed and going with the flow. MfG/Cheers Dave Cottlehuber
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Noah Slater 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. Can we reach consensus on this? I feel fine with both sides, so that doesn't help. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
On 13 October 2013 19:50, Dave Cottlehuber 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 > > If people who have OSX & use homebrew are able to do a quick check: > > brew update > brew outdated > # brew upgrade any relevant couch dependencies if you're brave > > edit /usr/local/Library/Formula/couchdb.rb and update url and sha1 as > follows: > > url ' > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz > ' > sha1 '5e2ead6c968d910e2ed871a7588758b238a9fd09' > > brew install -v couchdb > … > let me know if it works. > > I've got a PR ready to go as soon as the RM calls a successful vote BTW. > A+ > Dave > brew install -v couchdb Error: couchdb-1.4.0 already installed To install this version, first `brew unlink couchdb' brew unlink couchdb Unlinking /usr/local/Cellar/couchdb/1.4.0... 8 links removed brew install -v couchdb ==> Installing dependencies for couchdb: icu4c ... ==> Installing couchdb ==> Downloading https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/couchdb/source/1.5.0/rc.2/apache-couchdb-1.5.0.tar.gz ... ==> Summary [beer ;-)] /usr/local/Cellar/couchdb/1.5.0: 603 files, 13M, built in 118 seconds +1 -- Andy Wenk Hamburg - Germany RockIt!
