Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Airavata 0.2-Incubating RC5
Hi Ate, On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > I've reviewed this SNAPSHOT release candidate primarily on compliance and > completeness of the L&N files as requested. > > One other thing I noticed: the README points to http://www.airavata.org > > Seems like the www.airavata.org domain is under control of this project as it > does renders as a frameset pointing to the official airavata incubator site. > I'm curious what the ASF policy is on such separate project related domains? > And especially with respect to ownership/control of it. Who actually does own > this domain? Should this be a concern to the ASF? The readme is now fixed with the right url. The domain registration could be a larger issue, but FYI, I have registered it after Airavata was accepted into incubator and pointed to the incubator website. Should we take this part of discussion to legal? trademarks? > Now concerning the -src and -bin release candidates and the L&N files, I > think this has been greatly improved since the last candidate. > Kudos everyone who helped with this: quite a lot of work! > > But I can't help it to point out a few remaining quirks :) > > * source NOTICE and LICENSE file seem fine by me ;) > > * binary LICENSE file > - it contains some duplications of the same (set of) licenses, I think > starting on line # 2085: "APACHE JACKRABBIT SUBCOMPONENTS" > Actually that part which follows and which possible has been copied from a > Jackrabbit provided LICENSE file is a bit more nicely formatted (e.g. like > for the javax.jcr part). > - I haven't checked if *every* bundled jar is now properly covered in the > LICENSE file (where applicable) but with the size (2k+ lines) and coverage of > the LICENSE file I kind of now 'trust' they are ;) The duplicates are now removed with commit - r1330636 > > * binary NOTICE file > - I think there are some unneeded/unwanted entries still. Some notices and > copyright statements should not legally be needed nor are they requested. > For instance for BSD/MIT like licenses which already are provided for > verbatim in the LICENSE file itself, there is no need to (and thus should > not) be covered *also* in the NOTICE file. Having those in the LICENSE file > should be enough. And certainly so if the 3rd party artifact doesn't have or > require an explicit NOTICE file itself. I think this applies to the NOTICE > entries for SLF4J, DOM4J, ICU4J, Jettison, etc. Please do check if each of > these notices really are necessary/required. The unnecessary notices are now removed with commit - r1330639 > > - A different thing is the NOTICE provided for commons-logging (1.1.1). > The commons-logging jar come with a NOTICE file of its own (being an ASF > release it should). But IMO the additional content copied verbatim from that > NOTICE file can be ignored and thus removed. It concerns the following > section: > > This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown organization' > - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3 > - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12 > - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1 > > Only log4j is actually bundled with airavata and as an ASF artifact doesn't > need extra NOTICE coverage. And as the other referenced artifacts aren't > included or used there is no need to 'honor' this part from the > common-logging NOTICE file. > The ASL 2.0 license sections 4.d) says: "[...], excluding those notices that > do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works." Removed this notice with commit - r1330640 > Another thing I noticed in the binary distribution: some of the samples > included come with both src and (maven build) target folders, for example the > /samples/complex-math-service as well as a few others. > You might consider cleaning this up a bit further. Changing builds might require revisit the packaging and simple startup and tutorial instructions. I will leave this one in for now and will raise a jira to address before next release. > In addition, those samples modules also have additional NOTICE and LICENSE > files in their src/main/resources folders, but AFAIK these are not or no > longer used/bundled in the build artifact. Possibly outdated/leftover? Removed with commit -r1330641 > > IMO none of the above really are release blockers, so my overall impression: > awesome work guys! Many thanks Ate for hanging on with us as we addressed these and many more in the previous RC's. If the pre-requisists are met, I may now want to go to take the cyber-law courses :) Will prepare for a vote thread in the dev list. Cheers, Suresh > Regards, Ate > > On 04/24/2012 05:28 PM, Ate Douma wrote: >> I haven't seen anyone respond to this yet and I'm in a tight spot myself to >> make >> time for it. >> I'll try to free up some by tomorrow though, please accept my apologies for >> the >> delay. >> >> Ate >> >> On 04/22/2012 06:40 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: >>> Sorry to cross post here
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Airavata 0.2-Incubating RC5
On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > I've reviewed this SNAPSHOT release candidate primarily on compliance and > completeness of the L&N files as requested. > > One other thing I noticed: the README points to http://www.airavata.org > > Seems like the www.airavata.org domain is under control of this project as it > does renders as a frameset pointing to the official airavata incubator site. > I'm curious what the ASF policy is on such separate project related domains? > And especially with respect to ownership/control of it. Who actually does own > this domain? Should this be a concern to the ASF? > > Now concerning the -src and -bin release candidates and the L&N files, I > think this has been greatly improved since the last candidate. > Kudos everyone who helped with this: quite a lot of work! > > But I can't help it to point out a few remaining quirks :) > > * source NOTICE and LICENSE file seem fine by me ;) > > * binary LICENSE file > - it contains some duplications of the same (set of) licenses, I think > starting on line # 2085: "APACHE JACKRABBIT SUBCOMPONENTS" > Actually that part which follows and which possible has been copied from a > Jackrabbit provided LICENSE file is a bit more nicely formatted (e.g. like > for the javax.jcr part). > - I haven't checked if *every* bundled jar is now properly covered in the > LICENSE file (where applicable) but with the size (2k+ lines) and coverage of > the LICENSE file I kind of now 'trust' they are ;) > > * binary NOTICE file > - I think there are some unneeded/unwanted entries still. Some notices and > copyright statements should not legally be needed nor are they requested. > For instance for BSD/MIT like licenses which already are provided for > verbatim in the LICENSE file itself, there is no need to (and thus should > not) be covered *also* in the NOTICE file. Having those in the LICENSE file > should be enough. And certainly so if the 3rd party artifact doesn't have or > require an explicit NOTICE file itself. I think this applies to the NOTICE > entries for SLF4J, DOM4J, ICU4J, Jettison, etc. Please do check if each of > these notices really are necessary/required. > > - A different thing is the NOTICE provided for commons-logging (1.1.1). > The commons-logging jar come with a NOTICE file of its own (being an ASF > release it should). But IMO the additional content copied verbatim from that > NOTICE file can be ignored and thus removed. It concerns the following > section: > > This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown organization' > - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3 > - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12 > - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1 > > Only log4j is actually bundled with airavata and as an ASF artifact doesn't > need extra NOTICE coverage. And as the other referenced artifacts aren't > included or used there is no need to 'honor' this part from the > common-logging NOTICE file. > The ASL 2.0 license sections 4.d) says: "[...], excluding those notices that > do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works." > > > Another thing I noticed in the binary distribution: some of the samples > included come with both src and (maven build) target folders, for example the > /samples/complex-math-service as well as a few others. > You might consider cleaning this up a bit further. > In addition, those samples modules also have additional NOTICE and LICENSE > files in their src/main/resources folders, but AFAIK these are not or no > longer used/bundled in the build artifact. Possibly outdated/leftover? > > > IMO none of the above really are release blockers, so my overall impression: > awesome work guys! Hi Ate, Thank you very much for such a detailed review and feedback. Will start addressing them now. Since you did not come across any blockers, will proceed with the voting after addressing as much as possible. Suresh > > Regards, Ate > > On 04/24/2012 05:28 PM, Ate Douma wrote: >> I haven't seen anyone respond to this yet and I'm in a tight spot myself to >> make >> time for it. >> I'll try to free up some by tomorrow though, please accept my apologies for >> the >> delay. >> >> Ate >> >> On 04/22/2012 06:40 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: >>> Sorry to cross post here, but I think we need to get help from the Incubator >>> vets and not just >>> burden Ate here. I also think it would be great to get a fresh opinion. >>> >>> Incubator licensing/notice file experts, if you could help out the Airavata >>> community here, >>> I would sincerely appreciate it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Chris >>> >>> On Apr 22, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Suresh Marru wrote: >>> Hi All, Before I call a vote on the 0.2-incubating release, Can you please verify if all license and notice file requirements are met correctly? Source release: http://people.apache.org/builds/incubator/airavata/0.2-incubating/RC5/apache-airavata-0.2
[VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating). This will be the first incubator release for Apache OpenOffice and a key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.org. This release candidate provides the following important key changes compared to former OpenOffice releases: (1) Code clean up to remove all copyleft components and external dependencies (2) Reworked or introduced LICENSE and NOTICE file to reflect and document the used licenses of the code itself as well as of external 3rd party libraries (3) MD5, SHA1, SHA512 hashes and GPG signatures for all of artifacts For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/aoo-34-release-notes.html. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 16 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+%28incubating%29+Release+Candidate Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating). The vote starts now and will be open until: UTC midnight Wednesday, 1 May: 2012-05-01 24:00 UTC. The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list and is still ongoing for 2 hours. Vote thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F920630.7060003%40googlemail.com%3E Because of traveling I have to start the IPMC vote now and have to reference a preliminary RESULT email on ooo-dev. As soon as I will be online again I will send a reference to the final vote result. Result thread: The vote will be open for more than 5 days. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Airavata 0.2-Incubating RC5
Thank you Ate for awesome comments about the RC5 ! Thank you for your time !! Regards Lahiru On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > I've reviewed this SNAPSHOT release candidate primarily on compliance and > completeness of the L&N files as requested. > > One other thing I noticed: the README points to http://www.airavata.org > > Seems like the www.airavata.org domain is under control of this project > as it does renders as a frameset pointing to the official airavata > incubator site. > I'm curious what the ASF policy is on such separate project related > domains? And especially with respect to ownership/control of it. Who > actually does own this domain? Should this be a concern to the ASF? > > Now concerning the -src and -bin release candidates and the L&N files, I > think this has been greatly improved since the last candidate. > Kudos everyone who helped with this: quite a lot of work! > > But I can't help it to point out a few remaining quirks :) > > * source NOTICE and LICENSE file seem fine by me ;) > > * binary LICENSE file > - it contains some duplications of the same (set of) licenses, I think > starting on line # 2085: "APACHE JACKRABBIT SUBCOMPONENTS" > Actually that part which follows and which possible has been copied from a > Jackrabbit provided LICENSE file is a bit more nicely formatted (e.g. like > for the javax.jcr part). > - I haven't checked if *every* bundled jar is now properly covered in the > LICENSE file (where applicable) but with the size (2k+ lines) and coverage > of the LICENSE file I kind of now 'trust' they are ;) > > * binary NOTICE file > - I think there are some unneeded/unwanted entries still. Some notices and > copyright statements should not legally be needed nor are they requested. > For instance for BSD/MIT like licenses which already are provided for > verbatim in the LICENSE file itself, there is no need to (and thus should > not) be covered *also* in the NOTICE file. Having those in the LICENSE file > should be enough. And certainly so if the 3rd party artifact doesn't have > or require an explicit NOTICE file itself. I think this applies to the > NOTICE entries for SLF4J, DOM4J, ICU4J, Jettison, etc. Please do check if > each of these notices really are necessary/required. > > - A different thing is the NOTICE provided for commons-logging (1.1.1). > The commons-logging jar come with a NOTICE file of its own (being an ASF > release it should). But IMO the additional content copied verbatim from > that NOTICE file can be ignored and thus removed. It concerns the following > section: > > This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown > organization' > - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-**framework:jar:4.1.3 > - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12 > - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1 > > Only log4j is actually bundled with airavata and as an ASF artifact > doesn't need extra NOTICE coverage. And as the other referenced artifacts > aren't included or used there is no need to 'honor' this part from the > common-logging NOTICE file. > The ASL 2.0 license sections 4.d) says: "[...], excluding those notices > that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works." > > > Another thing I noticed in the binary distribution: some of the samples > included come with both src and (maven build) target folders, for example > the /samples/complex-math-service as well as a few others. > You might consider cleaning this up a bit further. > In addition, those samples modules also have additional NOTICE and LICENSE > files in their src/main/resources folders, but AFAIK these are not or no > longer used/bundled in the build artifact. Possibly outdated/leftover? > > > IMO none of the above really are release blockers, so my overall > impression: awesome work guys! > > Regards, Ate > > > On 04/24/2012 05:28 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > >> I haven't seen anyone respond to this yet and I'm in a tight spot myself >> to make >> time for it. >> I'll try to free up some by tomorrow though, please accept my apologies >> for the >> delay. >> >> Ate >> >> On 04/22/2012 06:40 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: >> >>> Sorry to cross post here, but I think we need to get help from the >>> Incubator >>> vets and not just >>> burden Ate here. I also think it would be great to get a fresh opinion. >>> >>> Incubator licensing/notice file experts, if you could help out the >>> Airavata >>> community here, >>> I would sincerely appreciate it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Chris >>> >>> On Apr 22, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Suresh Marru wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, Before I call a vote on the 0.2-incubating release, Can you please verify if all license and notice file requirements are met correctly? Source release: http://people.apache.org/**builds/incubator/airavata/0.2-** incubating/RC5/apache-**airavata-0.2-incubating-**SNAPSHOT-src.tar.gz
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Airavata 0.2-Incubating RC5
I've reviewed this SNAPSHOT release candidate primarily on compliance and completeness of the L&N files as requested. One other thing I noticed: the README points to http://www.airavata.org Seems like the www.airavata.org domain is under control of this project as it does renders as a frameset pointing to the official airavata incubator site. I'm curious what the ASF policy is on such separate project related domains? And especially with respect to ownership/control of it. Who actually does own this domain? Should this be a concern to the ASF? Now concerning the -src and -bin release candidates and the L&N files, I think this has been greatly improved since the last candidate. Kudos everyone who helped with this: quite a lot of work! But I can't help it to point out a few remaining quirks :) * source NOTICE and LICENSE file seem fine by me ;) * binary LICENSE file - it contains some duplications of the same (set of) licenses, I think starting on line # 2085: "APACHE JACKRABBIT SUBCOMPONENTS" Actually that part which follows and which possible has been copied from a Jackrabbit provided LICENSE file is a bit more nicely formatted (e.g. like for the javax.jcr part). - I haven't checked if *every* bundled jar is now properly covered in the LICENSE file (where applicable) but with the size (2k+ lines) and coverage of the LICENSE file I kind of now 'trust' they are ;) * binary NOTICE file - I think there are some unneeded/unwanted entries still. Some notices and copyright statements should not legally be needed nor are they requested. For instance for BSD/MIT like licenses which already are provided for verbatim in the LICENSE file itself, there is no need to (and thus should not) be covered *also* in the NOTICE file. Having those in the LICENSE file should be enough. And certainly so if the 3rd party artifact doesn't have or require an explicit NOTICE file itself. I think this applies to the NOTICE entries for SLF4J, DOM4J, ICU4J, Jettison, etc. Please do check if each of these notices really are necessary/required. - A different thing is the NOTICE provided for commons-logging (1.1.1). The commons-logging jar come with a NOTICE file of its own (being an ASF release it should). But IMO the additional content copied verbatim from that NOTICE file can be ignored and thus removed. It concerns the following section: This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown organization' - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3 - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12 - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1 Only log4j is actually bundled with airavata and as an ASF artifact doesn't need extra NOTICE coverage. And as the other referenced artifacts aren't included or used there is no need to 'honor' this part from the common-logging NOTICE file. The ASL 2.0 license sections 4.d) says: "[...], excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works." Another thing I noticed in the binary distribution: some of the samples included come with both src and (maven build) target folders, for example the /samples/complex-math-service as well as a few others. You might consider cleaning this up a bit further. In addition, those samples modules also have additional NOTICE and LICENSE files in their src/main/resources folders, but AFAIK these are not or no longer used/bundled in the build artifact. Possibly outdated/leftover? IMO none of the above really are release blockers, so my overall impression: awesome work guys! Regards, Ate On 04/24/2012 05:28 PM, Ate Douma wrote: I haven't seen anyone respond to this yet and I'm in a tight spot myself to make time for it. I'll try to free up some by tomorrow though, please accept my apologies for the delay. Ate On 04/22/2012 06:40 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: Sorry to cross post here, but I think we need to get help from the Incubator vets and not just burden Ate here. I also think it would be great to get a fresh opinion. Incubator licensing/notice file experts, if you could help out the Airavata community here, I would sincerely appreciate it. Cheers, Chris On Apr 22, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Suresh Marru wrote: Hi All, Before I call a vote on the 0.2-incubating release, Can you please verify if all license and notice file requirements are met correctly? Source release: http://people.apache.org/builds/incubator/airavata/0.2-incubating/RC5/apache-airavata-0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT-src.tar.gz Binary release: http://people.apache.org/builds/incubator/airavata/0.2-incubating/RC5/apache-airavata-0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz Hi Ate, Thank you very much for all the help and guidance so far on the L, N, D requirements. Can you please verify, if the above releases confirm the legal guidelines? It will be great if you can find time to verify so we can save time with voting iterations. I really its very time taking and will appreciate your effort. Thanks, Suresh ++
