Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Joe Schaeferjoe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: The relevant commit is r665124- Simon Forman doesn't yet have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I should probably explain the issue in more detail, since only the handful of people who have read the Facebook CCLA as it pertains to Thrift understand what I'm talking about. First take a look at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=665124 Not to muddy the water further, but that commit says it is by mcslee and reviewed by Simon. Surely reviewing it doesn't give Simon any ownership rights? -Jonathan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
- Original Message From: Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:05:53 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Joe Schaeferwrote: The relevant commit is r665124- Simon Forman doesn't yet have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I should probably explain the issue in more detail, since only the handful of people who have read the Facebook CCLA as it pertains to Thrift understand what I'm talking about. First take a look at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=665124 Not to muddy the water further, but that commit says it is by mcslee and reviewed by Simon. Surely reviewing it doesn't give Simon any ownership rights? I'm not putting much stock in what the commit log says- the fact that he's listed as a contributor for that commit combined with the fact that the Facebook CCLA lists him as an exclusion is what I'm basing my opinion on. Only the Thrift devs would know definitively what Simon actually did. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote: The vote is now closed with the following results: * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman) * 0 votes: 0 * -1 votes: 0 The vote passes. I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in the LICENSE file. Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party libraries, apart from Groovy. Thanks everyone. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 15:08 -0500, Eric Evans wrote: The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this release. Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed, structured key-value store. Podling Vote thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans SVN Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1 Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/ Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:01 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote: The vote is now closed with the following results: * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman) * 0 votes: 0 * -1 votes: 0 The vote passes. I was surprised to read this, as I noticed a discussion about the release on the gene...@i.a.o list And Sebb's mail pretty much indicates there are (still) some issues -matthias I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in the LICENSE file. Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party libraries, apart from Groovy. Thanks everyone. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 15:08 -0500, Eric Evans wrote: The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this release. Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed, structured key-value store. Podling Vote thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans SVN Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1 Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/ Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote: The vote is now closed with the following results: * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman) * 0 votes: 0 * -1 votes: 0 The vote passes. I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in the LICENSE file. Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party libraries, apart from Groovy. Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On 18/08/2009, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote: The vote is now closed with the following results: * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman) * 0 votes: 0 * -1 votes: 0 The vote passes. I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in the LICENSE file. Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party libraries, apart from Groovy. Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license. No, it doesn't exactly say that. The way I read it currently, the BSD notice needs to go into the NOTICE or LICENSE file, not a license file. Besides, the JIRA is still open. Also not resolved is the fact that the main LICENSE file neither includes nor has pointers to the other licenses. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
- Original Message From: ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote: On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote: The vote is now closed with the following results: * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman) * 0 votes: 0 * -1 votes: 0 The vote passes. I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in the LICENSE file. Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party libraries, apart from Groovy. Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license. I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed by the cassandra candidate. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:53 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: On 18/08/2009, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote: The vote is now closed with the following results: * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman) * 0 votes: 0 * -1 votes: 0 The vote passes. I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in the LICENSE file. Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party libraries, apart from Groovy. Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license. No, it doesn't exactly say that. The way I read it currently, the BSD notice needs to go into the NOTICE or LICENSE file, not a license file. Besides, the JIRA is still open. Also not resolved is the fact that the main LICENSE file neither includes nor has pointers to the other licenses. It looks like this vote is done so i'll start a new thread on general@ about this. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 07:58 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote: I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in the LICENSE file. Does the patch attached to CASSANDRA-371[0] suffice? [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12416885/v1-0001-CASSANDRA-371-top-level-reference-of-lib-licenses.txt -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
- Original Message From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; antel...@apache.org Cc: cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 - Original Message From: ant elder To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote: On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote: The vote is now closed with the following results: * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman) * 0 votes: 0 * -1 votes: 0 The vote passes. I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in the LICENSE file. Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party libraries, apart from Groovy. Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license. I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed by the cassandra candidate. The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt in its META-INF dir. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Works for me, but to get my +1 I need to see libthrift.jar sorted out. - Original Message From: Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:55:18 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 07:58 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote: I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in the LICENSE file. Does the patch attached to CASSANDRA-371[0] suffice? [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12416885/v1-0001-CASSANDRA-371-top-level-reference-of-lib-licenses.txt -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Joe Schaeferjoe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; antel...@apache.org Cc: cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 - Original Message From: ant elder To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote: On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote: The vote is now closed with the following results: * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman) * 0 votes: 0 * -1 votes: 0 The vote passes. I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in the LICENSE file. Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party libraries, apart from Groovy. Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license. I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed by the cassandra candidate. The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt in its META-INF dir. Though that is only required if the libthrift.jar is to be distributed separately, eg from a Maven repository, which isn't the case at the moment. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 09:56 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote: The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt in its META-INF dir. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-566 -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
- Original Message From: ant elder antel...@apache.org To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:05:03 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Joe Schaeferwrote: - Original Message From: Joe Schaefer To: general@incubator.apache.org; antel...@apache.org Cc: cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 - Original Message From: ant elder To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote: On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote: The vote is now closed with the following results: * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman) * 0 votes: 0 * -1 votes: 0 The vote passes. I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in the LICENSE file. Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party libraries, apart from Groovy. Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license. I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed by the cassandra candidate. The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt in its META-INF dir. Though that is only required if the libthrift.jar is to be distributed separately, eg from a Maven repository, which isn't the case at the moment. Agreed that that aspect isn't essential here. The real issue is to figure out what the licensing terms are on the TProcessorFactory component. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
- Original Message From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; antel...@apache.org Cc: cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:13:46 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 - Original Message From: ant elder To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:05:03 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Joe Schaeferwrote: - Original Message From: Joe Schaefer To: general@incubator.apache.org; antel...@apache.org Cc: cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:58:16 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 - Original Message From: ant elder To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:31:57 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] was: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebbwrote: On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans wrote: The vote is now closed with the following results: * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman) * 0 votes: 0 * -1 votes: 0 The vote passes. I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in the LICENSE file. Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party libraries, apart from Groovy. Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license. I would like to see at least a mention of the lib/licenses directory in the LICENSE file. Moreover the LICENSE listed for the Thrift component is questionable since Thrift has never formally released anything under the Apache License and THRIFT-387 has now been reopened, which certainly affects the licensing of the java TProcessorFactory components distributed by the cassandra candidate. The distributed libthrift.jar is also missing a LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt in its META-INF dir. Though that is only required if the libthrift.jar is to be distributed separately, eg from a Maven repository, which isn't the case at the moment. Agreed that that aspect isn't essential here. The real issue is to figure out what the licensing terms are on the TProcessorFactory component. The relevant commit is r665124- Simon Forman doesn't yet have an ICLA on file with the ASF. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: On 14/08/2009, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote: The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this release. Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed, structured key-value store. Podling Vote thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans No zip archives. SVN Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1 Lots of missing SVN properties, see CASSANDRA-368 The NOTICE file should not contain the line Developers and Contributors are listed in the project POM file It only mentions Groovy, yet the binary archive contains several other jars: antlr-3.1.3.jar apache-cassandra-incubating-0.4.0-beta1.jar clhm-20090629.jar commons-cli-1.1.jar commons-collections-3.2.1.jar commons-javaflow-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar commons-lang-2.4.jar google-collect-1.0-rc1.jar groovy-1.5.6.jar high-scale-lib.jar jline-0.9.94.jar junit-4.6.jar libthrift.jar log4j-1.2.15.jar Commons Javaflow has never been released by the Apache Commons PMC - so it seems at best a bad practice to release it as part of Cassandra. Are you also releasing the source code that relates to that SNAPSHOT jar? Niall The commons jars are OK, but surely the others need mentioning? Is JUnit needed at run-time? If not, don't include it. The different license files all need to be included in the top-level LICENSE.txt file No need to mention commons or other ASF jars, but the others should be mentioned, e.g. add at the end: x,y, and z are licensed under the AL 2.0, see above. The license for X is here: [Include license text] Etc. Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/ Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html Regards, -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: On 14/08/2009, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote: The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this release. Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed, structured key-value store. Podling Vote thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans No zip archives. SVN Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1 Lots of missing SVN properties, see CASSANDRA-368 The NOTICE file should not contain the line Developers and Contributors are listed in the project POM file It only mentions Groovy, yet the binary archive contains several other jars: antlr-3.1.3.jar apache-cassandra-incubating-0.4.0-beta1.jar clhm-20090629.jar commons-cli-1.1.jar commons-collections-3.2.1.jar commons-javaflow-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar commons-lang-2.4.jar google-collect-1.0-rc1.jar groovy-1.5.6.jar high-scale-lib.jar jline-0.9.94.jar junit-4.6.jar libthrift.jar log4j-1.2.15.jar The commons jars are OK, but surely the others need mentioning? Is JUnit needed at run-time? If not, don't include it. The different license files all need to be included in the top-level LICENSE.txt file No need to mention commons or other ASF jars, but the others should be mentioned, e.g. add at the end: x,y, and z are licensed under the AL 2.0, see above. The license for X is here: [Include license text] Etc. Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/ Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html Regards, -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com Could you say which if any of those are blocking issues that must be fixed for this release? Given whats being said in the Thrift release legal issues thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party licenses separate, the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On 17/08/2009, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: On 14/08/2009, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote: The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this release. Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed, structured key-value store. Podling Vote thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans No zip archives. SVN Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1 Lots of missing SVN properties, see CASSANDRA-368 The NOTICE file should not contain the line Developers and Contributors are listed in the project POM file It only mentions Groovy, yet the binary archive contains several other jars: antlr-3.1.3.jar apache-cassandra-incubating-0.4.0-beta1.jar clhm-20090629.jar commons-cli-1.1.jar commons-collections-3.2.1.jar commons-javaflow-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar commons-lang-2.4.jar google-collect-1.0-rc1.jar groovy-1.5.6.jar high-scale-lib.jar jline-0.9.94.jar junit-4.6.jar libthrift.jar log4j-1.2.15.jar The commons jars are OK, but surely the others need mentioning? Is JUnit needed at run-time? If not, don't include it. The different license files all need to be included in the top-level LICENSE.txt file No need to mention commons or other ASF jars, but the others should be mentioned, e.g. add at the end: x,y, and z are licensed under the AL 2.0, see above. The license for X is here: [Include license text] Etc. Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/ Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html Regards, -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com Could you say which if any of those are blocking issues that must be fixed for this release? The SVN properties are not blocking. Given whats being said in the Thrift release legal issues thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party licenses separate, I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE file should have pointers to the other license files. the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code included in the propose release. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:00 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: On 17/08/2009, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: snip Given whats being said in the Thrift release legal issues thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party licenses separate, I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE file should have pointers to the other license files. apache policy doesn't make this necessary but it is best practice. it's sebb's call whether he's willing to +1 a release. the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code included in the propose release. no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice) - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On 17/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:00 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: On 17/08/2009, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: snip Given whats being said in the Thrift release legal issues thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party licenses separate, I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE file should have pointers to the other license files. apache policy doesn't make this necessary but it is best practice. it's sebb's call whether he's willing to +1 a release. What is the ASF policy for 3rd party LICENSEs then? the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code included in the propose release. no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice) So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they require attribution or not. I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require attribution (notice). - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code included in the propose release. no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice) So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they require attribution or not. I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require attribution (notice). The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so precisely defined. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says: The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party notices but there is nothing that defines what are required third-party notices. The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. This is done in the Cassandra release by including the complete ANTLR license in a separate license file, and as thats done it covers all the ANTLR requirements so is there any specific ASF policy that says its also necessary to have anything related to ANTLR in the NOTICE file? ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Eric Evanseev...@rackspace.com wrote: On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:00 +0100, sebb wrote: Given whats being said in the Thrift release legal issues thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party licenses separate, I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE file should have pointers to the other license files. the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code included in the propose release. When preparing for the 0.3.0[0] release I spent a great deal of time trying to get all of this right. I looked at list threads for both successful and failed podling release votes, I looked at what top-level projects were doing, and I read through what documentation I could find. This wasn't as helpful as I'd have liked because the documents are non-normative and the application is inconsistent, (and occasionally contradictory). So I did the best I could. The conclusion I came to with respect to NOTICE.txt was that it existed for purposes of attribution, and was specifically in response to section 4(d) of the Apache License. As a result, the NOTICE.txt in the (approved )0.3.0 artifacts and the proposed 0.4.0, contains two attribution statements, one for the Apache licensed Groovy, and one for software developed by The Apache Software Foundation which should cover everything else that is Apache licensed. The conclusion I came to for LICENSE.txt was that it was for including the full license text applicable to the project itself. Both of the above conclusions seemed consistent with at least some successful podling releases, and with some ASF top-level projects, and (to the best of my knowledge), all of the license requirements for our third-party dependencies are being met. However, I'd be happy to go back and correct any shortcomings and re-roll the artifacts if that will get us the votes we need to make a release. I just wish things were more consistent and that the process required a little less groping around in the dark. [0] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg21853.html -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com Ok, +1 from me to release. Happy to reconsider if anyone can find an actual link to some evidence of specific policy that says how this release is done is not ok. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, ant elderant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russellcraig.russ...@sun.com wrote: Hi Ant, On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code included in the propose release. no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice) So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they require attribution or not. I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require attribution (notice). The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so precisely defined. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says: The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party notices The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect to find *all* *required* third-party notices. but there is nothing that defines what are required third-party notices. The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. When a notice includes the words required, must, shall, or other imperative, then the notice is considered to be a required third-party notice. And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file of the distribution. But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced: 1) the above copyright notice 2) this list of conditions 3) the following disclaimer So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in the NOTICE file? effectively the complete license (including the copyright statement) needs to be reproduced: blockquote ANTLR3 is: Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terence Parr All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the author nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. /blockquote I've not seen any Apache projects do that. i don't recall ever seeing that either but we do try to evolve. some might interpret the above text as a LICENSE (and not a NOTICE). this would then lead to the conclusion that the embedded text version in LICENSE would be enough without duplication in NOTICE. (note that this argument only applies when the license is embedded in the LICENSE document.) the easiest way to resolve this is just ask the legal committee to take and document a decision about interpretation FWIW i see no reason not to duplicate in both LICENSE and NOTICE as that'll improve communication - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Robert Burrell Donkinrobertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, ant elderant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russellcraig.russ...@sun.com wrote: Hi Ant, On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code included in the propose release. no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice) So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they require attribution or not. I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require attribution (notice). The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so precisely defined. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says: The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party notices The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect to find *all* *required* third-party notices. but there is nothing that defines what are required third-party notices. The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. When a notice includes the words required, must, shall, or other imperative, then the notice is considered to be a required third-party notice. And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file of the distribution. But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced: 1) the above copyright notice 2) this list of conditions 3) the following disclaimer So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in the NOTICE file? effectively the complete license (including the copyright statement) needs to be reproduced: blockquote ANTLR3 is: Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terence Parr All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the author nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. /blockquote I've not seen any Apache projects do that. i don't recall ever seeing that either but we do try to evolve. some might interpret the above text as a LICENSE (and not a NOTICE). this would then lead to the conclusion that the embedded text version in LICENSE would be enough without duplication in NOTICE. (note that this argument only applies when the license is embedded in the LICENSE document.) the easiest way to resolve this is just ask the legal committee to take and document a decision about interpretation LEGAL-31 looks like it will cover this but its not yet resolved. Other TLPs and poddlings do releases like this one is, so would it be possible to get another +1 on this release in the meantime so its not held up? ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On 17/08/2009, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russellcraig.russ...@sun.com wrote: Hi Ant, On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code included in the propose release. no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice) So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they require attribution or not. I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require attribution (notice). The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so precisely defined. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says: The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party notices The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect to find *all* *required* third-party notices. but there is nothing that defines what are required third-party notices. The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. When a notice includes the words required, must, shall, or other imperative, then the notice is considered to be a required third-party notice. And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file of the distribution. But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the entire ANTLR license should be included Yes. in the NOTICE file No, it can be elsewhere. because the ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced: 1) the above copyright notice That's the NOTICE bit. 2) this list of conditions 3) the following disclaimer So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in the NOTICE file? I've not seen any Apache projects do that. No, just put the Copyright header in the NOTICE file Put the entire license in the LICENSE file. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Hi Ant, On Aug 17, 2009, at 8:40 AM, ant elder wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russellcraig.russ...@sun.com wrote: Hi Ant, On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code included in the propose release. no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice) So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they require attribution or not. I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require attribution (notice). The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so precisely defined. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says: The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party notices The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect to find *all* *required* third-party notices. but there is nothing that defines what are required third-party notices. The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. When a notice includes the words required, must, shall, or other imperative, then the notice is considered to be a required third- party notice. And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file of the distribution. But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced: 1) the above copyright notice 2) this list of conditions 3) the following disclaimer So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in the NOTICE file? Yes! This is the required notice that we're talking about. From the Antlr web page referenced above http://www.antlr.org/license.html you need to put this into your NOTICE file: Antlr is covered by the following notice: Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terence Parr All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: • Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. • Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. • Neither the name of the author nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. I've not seen any Apache projects do that. And your LICENSE file contains the text of the BSD license with the notation that the Antlr bit is covered by the BSD license. Craig ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Hi Eric, On Aug 17, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Eric Evans wrote: On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:00 +0100, sebb wrote: Given whats being said in the Thrift release legal issues thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party licenses separate, I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE file should have pointers to the other license files. the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code included in the propose release. When preparing for the 0.3.0[0] release I spent a great deal of time trying to get all of this right. And I understand that it's frustrating fetching rocks. I looked at list threads for both successful and failed podling release votes, I looked at what top- level projects were doing, and I read through what documentation I could find. This wasn't as helpful as I'd have liked because the documents are non-normative and the application is inconsistent, (and occasionally contradictory). So I did the best I could. The conclusion I came to with respect to NOTICE.txt was that it existed for purposes of attribution, and was specifically in response to section 4(d) of the Apache License. As a result, the NOTICE.txt in the (approved )0.3.0 artifacts and the proposed 0.4.0, contains two attribution statements, one for the Apache licensed Groovy, and one for software developed by The Apache Software Foundation which should cover everything else that is Apache licensed. If you ship ANTLR with your release, you must include that fact in the NOTICE file, otherwise you're violating the terms of the ANTLR license. The conclusion I came to for LICENSE.txt was that it was for including the full license text applicable to the project itself. No, it's all of the licenses for all the code you're shipping. Both of the above conclusions seemed consistent with at least some successful podling releases, and with some ASF top-level projects, and (to the best of my knowledge), all of the license requirements for our third-party dependencies are being met. However, I'd be happy to go back and correct any shortcomings and re-roll the artifacts if that will get us the votes we need to make a release. I just wish things were more consistent and that the process required a little less groping around in the dark. Well, the license stuff is the trickiest part of rolling a release. Craig [0] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg21853.html -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Craig L Russellcraig.russ...@sun.com wrote: Hi Ant, On Aug 17, 2009, at 8:40 AM, ant elder wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russellcraig.russ...@sun.com wrote: Hi Ant, On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote: the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code included in the propose release. no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice) So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they require attribution or not. I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require attribution (notice). The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so precisely defined. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says: The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party notices The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect to find *all* *required* third-party notices. but there is nothing that defines what are required third-party notices. The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. When a notice includes the words required, must, shall, or other imperative, then the notice is considered to be a required third-party notice. And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file of the distribution. But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced: 1) the above copyright notice 2) this list of conditions 3) the following disclaimer So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in the NOTICE file? Yes! This is the required notice that we're talking about. I don't agree. There's nothing in any ASF policy docs that i can find to back that up and the discussion on legal-discuss@ about LEGAL-59 agrees that nothing is needed in the NOTICE file for BSD licenses - http://apache.markmail.org/message/4ldaiay2vrzmlgxe So again, +1 from me to release this as is. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
+1 (binding) I followed the thread and the provided stuff seems to be fine. -M On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Eric Evanseev...@rackspace.com wrote: The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this release. Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed, structured key-value store. Podling Vote thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans SVN Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1 Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/ Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html Regards, -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
On 14/08/2009, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote: The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this release. Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed, structured key-value store. Podling Vote thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans No zip archives. SVN Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1 Lots of missing SVN properties, see CASSANDRA-368 The NOTICE file should not contain the line Developers and Contributors are listed in the project POM file It only mentions Groovy, yet the binary archive contains several other jars: antlr-3.1.3.jar apache-cassandra-incubating-0.4.0-beta1.jar clhm-20090629.jar commons-cli-1.1.jar commons-collections-3.2.1.jar commons-javaflow-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar commons-lang-2.4.jar google-collect-1.0-rc1.jar groovy-1.5.6.jar high-scale-lib.jar jline-0.9.94.jar junit-4.6.jar libthrift.jar log4j-1.2.15.jar The commons jars are OK, but surely the others need mentioning? Is JUnit needed at run-time? If not, don't include it. The different license files all need to be included in the top-level LICENSE.txt file No need to mention commons or other ASF jars, but the others should be mentioned, e.g. add at the end: x,y, and z are licensed under the AL 2.0, see above. The license for X is here: [Include license text] Etc. Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/ Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html Regards, -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache Cassandra 0.4.0-beta1. We would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this release. Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed, structured key-value store. Podling Vote thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-...@incubator.apache.org/msg00639.html 0.4.0-beta1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans SVN Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.4.0-beta1 Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/ Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html Regards, -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
