Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
El vie, 17-04-2009 a las 16:22 -0700, Upayavira escribió: > On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:48 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote: > > > > > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN > > > repository is considered as distribution too. > > > > No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is > > done on the release artifacts separately from SVN issues. Unlike > > release artifacts, SVN are at times incomplete, incorrect and > > inaccurate. "Tags" have no legal meaning whatsoever, and should not > > even be part of the discussion. > > > > So, since we are looking at a "Release", please spare the SVN > > discussion for later. > > Personally, I give a lot of weight to what Larry said on legal-discuss. > I'd have him clarify, as an example, if correcting an error by deleting some resources in trunk/branches/tags would be enough, even if the offending items are accesible from specific revisions, or else surgery of the repository would be needed in those cases where we are doing unlawful distribution. But definitely in the legal* thread, not here :) Note also that unlawful distribution is not the same as Releasing against our policies. For instance, a LGPL artifact can be against our policies, but we are legally entitled to distribute it, so "rewriting the past" might not really be needed. Regards Santiago > Both SVN and releases are distribution. So, we _must_ be sure that > anything that goes into SVN we have the right to distribute. > > However, we choose to apply a policy on top of this to our releases - > which is that everything we distribute within a release must be > compatible with the Apache License. > > Thus, when employ X of Y Corporation checks out a project from SVN > containing an LGPL library, we have not breached anyone's copyright, so > we can do it, yet to package that project while including that LGPL > library would go against our AL compatibility policy, therefore we won't > allow it. > > Of course, there is always a risk that non AL compatible stuff in SVN > could sneak into a release, so having it in SVN should be discouraged, > but it should not be banned. > > This seems to me to make a lot of sense. Of course, IANAL. > > Upayavira > > > > - > 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 Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 10:18 +1000, Gavin wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: Upayavira [mailto:u...@odoko.co.uk] > > Sent: Saturday, 18 April 2009 9:23 AM > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try) > > > > On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:48 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote: > > > > > > > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN > > > > repository is considered as distribution too. > > > > > > No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is > > > done on the release artifacts separately from SVN issues. Unlike > > > release artifacts, SVN are at times incomplete, incorrect and > > > inaccurate. "Tags" have no legal meaning whatsoever, and should not > > > even be part of the discussion. > > > > > > So, since we are looking at a "Release", please spare the SVN > > > discussion for later. > > > > Personally, I give a lot of weight to what Larry said on legal-discuss. > > > > Both SVN and releases are distribution. So, we _must_ be sure that > > anything that goes into SVN we have the right to distribute. > > Are you talking about trunk, or release tags/branches ? > > SVN in my opinion is a place where we place code to work on collaboratively > , it's a developer resource - anything in there is subject to being broken > code-wise, documentation-wise and for short bursts may contain 3rd party > jars and items without appropriate licensing. Acceptable I think, until some > volunteer dev cleans it up. > > I do not agree that anything in svn is distribution, the same as snapshots > and nightlies are not (supposed to be) advertised to joe bloggs the user, > but jane bloggs the dev being on the dev list will know where to get her > hands on it. > > And now I just read the bit about sparing svn discussion for later, oops. There is a distinction between 'distribution' and 'release'. As Larry pointed out, someone from company X (say, IBM) may do a checkout from our SVN. That means a transfer of intellectual property from ASF to IBM. That is distribution - no question about it. Thus, I cannot commit a bootlegged music track into Apache SVN, as neither I, nor the ASF, have the right to distribute it. However, I could commit an LGPL library, as we do have the right to distribute that. We just have a policy to not allow it to be included within a 'release' - the release being the end-product of ASF effort, and the thing that is intended for consumption by the public. Upayavira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
> -Original Message- > From: Upayavira [mailto:u...@odoko.co.uk] > Sent: Saturday, 18 April 2009 9:23 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try) > > On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:48 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote: > > > > > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN > > > repository is considered as distribution too. > > > > No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is > > done on the release artifacts separately from SVN issues. Unlike > > release artifacts, SVN are at times incomplete, incorrect and > > inaccurate. "Tags" have no legal meaning whatsoever, and should not > > even be part of the discussion. > > > > So, since we are looking at a "Release", please spare the SVN > > discussion for later. > > Personally, I give a lot of weight to what Larry said on legal-discuss. > > Both SVN and releases are distribution. So, we _must_ be sure that > anything that goes into SVN we have the right to distribute. Are you talking about trunk, or release tags/branches ? SVN in my opinion is a place where we place code to work on collaboratively , it's a developer resource - anything in there is subject to being broken code-wise, documentation-wise and for short bursts may contain 3rd party jars and items without appropriate licensing. Acceptable I think, until some volunteer dev cleans it up. I do not agree that anything in svn is distribution, the same as snapshots and nightlies are not (supposed to be) advertised to joe bloggs the user, but jane bloggs the dev being on the dev list will know where to get her hands on it. And now I just read the bit about sparing svn discussion for later, oops. Gav... > > However, we choose to apply a policy on top of this to our releases - > which is that everything we distribute within a release must be > compatible with the Apache License. > > Thus, when employ X of Y Corporation checks out a project from SVN > containing an LGPL library, we have not breached anyone's copyright, so > we can do it, yet to package that project while including that LGPL > library would go against our AL compatibility policy, therefore we won't > allow it. > > Of course, there is always a risk that non AL compatible stuff in SVN > could sneak into a release, so having it in SVN should be discouraged, > but it should not be banned. > > This seems to me to make a lot of sense. Of course, IANAL. > > Upayavira > > > > - > 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 Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:48 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote: > > > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN > > repository is considered as distribution too. > > No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is > done on the release artifacts separately from SVN issues. Unlike > release artifacts, SVN are at times incomplete, incorrect and > inaccurate. "Tags" have no legal meaning whatsoever, and should not > even be part of the discussion. > > So, since we are looking at a "Release", please spare the SVN > discussion for later. Personally, I give a lot of weight to what Larry said on legal-discuss. Both SVN and releases are distribution. So, we _must_ be sure that anything that goes into SVN we have the right to distribute. However, we choose to apply a policy on top of this to our releases - which is that everything we distribute within a release must be compatible with the Apache License. Thus, when employ X of Y Corporation checks out a project from SVN containing an LGPL library, we have not breached anyone's copyright, so we can do it, yet to package that project while including that LGPL library would go against our AL compatibility policy, therefore we won't allow it. Of course, there is always a risk that non AL compatible stuff in SVN could sneak into a release, so having it in SVN should be discouraged, but it should not be banned. This seems to me to make a lot of sense. Of course, IANAL. Upayavira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
We got 4 votes, all in favor, and of which 3 are binding. Ant Elder Sebb (non-binding) Niclas Hedhman Martijn Dashorst The vote passes. I will copy the artifacts to Pivot's dist area and update our documentation site to make the download.cgi page live after the mirrors have picked the artifacts up. Thanks again to all who inspected the release, -T - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
+1 publish On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Todd Volkert wrote: > > [x] +1 Publish > > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java > > I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er > I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc > I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Todd Volkert wrote: [x] +1 Publish Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM, ant elder wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote: >>> >>> > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN >>> > repository is considered as distribution too. >>> >>> No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is >>> done on the release artifacts separately from SVN issues. Unlike >>> release artifacts, SVN are at times incomplete, incorrect and >>> inaccurate. "Tags" have no legal meaning whatsoever, and should not >>> even be part of the discussion. >>> >>> >> And that matches "What is a release?" in the ASF Releases FAQ (although SVN >> its not explicitly mentioned): http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what > > Uhhh, sorry, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? > Agreeing with you, sorry if that wasn't clear. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM, ant elder wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote: >> >> > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN >> > repository is considered as distribution too. >> >> No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is >> done on the release artifacts separately from SVN issues. Unlike >> release artifacts, SVN are at times incomplete, incorrect and >> inaccurate. "Tags" have no legal meaning whatsoever, and should not >> even be part of the discussion. >> >> > And that matches "What is a release?" in the ASF Releases FAQ (although SVN > its not explicitly mentioned): http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what Uhhh, sorry, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote: > > > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN > > repository is considered as distribution too. > > No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is > done on the release artifacts separately from SVN issues. Unlike > release artifacts, SVN are at times incomplete, incorrect and > inaccurate. "Tags" have no legal meaning whatsoever, and should not > even be part of the discussion. > > And that matches "What is a release?" in the ASF Releases FAQ (although SVN its not explicitly mentioned): http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what ...ant
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote: > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN > repository is considered as distribution too. No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is done on the release artifacts separately from SVN issues. Unlike release artifacts, SVN are at times incomplete, incorrect and inaccurate. "Tags" have no legal meaning whatsoever, and should not even be part of the discussion. So, since we are looking at a "Release", please spare the SVN discussion for later. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On 17/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote: > > AFAICS the archives look OK, so no objections from me. > > > Not to be a pain, but is that a +1? :) > +1 > - > 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 Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
> AFAICS the archives look OK, so no objections from me. Not to be a pain, but is that a +1? :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote: > Ok, per the recommendations on the legal-discuss thread and here (and > just to make sure we're fully in keeping with the spirit of ASF > policies), I've removed the offending files from the tag (and copied s/tag/branch/ ? > the branch to the tag), which can be found at: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/tags/v1.1/ Thanks. The SVN tag now agrees with the source archive contents. > Note: I did NOT regenerate the release archives because there's no > need - nothing has changed from their perspective. This only related > to what was in SVN that *wasn't* part of the release artifacts. Thus, > I am not calling for a new vote -- the existing vote should proceed as > planned. AFAICS the archives look OK, so no objections from me. > Thanks everyone for taking the time to look at this. I appreciate the > due diligence you're putting into this, because I know it takes time > to review someone else's release, and it's making the end result that > much more solid. > > -T > > p.s. on the trunk, we've just migrated the demos sub-project and the > JFreeChart provider off of the ASF repository for good (see > http://code.google.com/p/pivot-demos/ and > http://code.google.com/p/pivot-jfree/). We have multiple contributors > working on various demos at any given time, and I'm not confident that > relying on each of them to be a licensing expert is remotely workable, > so it's much easier just to say "Pivot is at ASF -- demo applications > for Pivot are at Google Code". > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Todd Volkert wrote: > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200904.mbox/browser > > > > Summary: > > (a) Some consider SVN to be part of your distribution, and some don't, > > so there's no true resolution there > > (b) Per http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#transition-incubator, > > this weighs on us less because we're an incubating project that had > > these dependencies before we joined the ASF. > > > > Bottom line: > > We'll remove those dependencies from SVN altogether in the trunk (and > > thus for all future releases) by migrating them to Google Code -- just > > to make sure there's no ambiguity about what's ASF-compliant and > > what's not. But in the meantime, based on the two points above, this > > shouldn't hold up the 1.1 release. > > > > -T > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Todd Volkert wrote: > >>> We don't have any LGPL libraries in the distribution - only in SVN, for > some demos that aren't actually included in the distribution artifacts. > >> > >> Or dependencies of any kind, for that mater. The actual *release* is > >> compliant with ASF's policies. If our SVN repository is not, that > >> will be fixed as soon as I get an answer from legal, and I can strip > >> out the code from the trunk as well as the tag, but all the while, the > >> tarballs and zip files were compliant. > >> > > > > - > 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 Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
>> p.s. on the trunk, we've just migrated the demos sub-project and the >> JFreeChart provider off of the ASF repository for good > >Were they license incompatible? I'd really like to have demos at the ASF, >not just the core code. But they should be demos that the project is >willing to maintain. The JFree project was not compatible. Some of the examples in the demos project were compatible, but it would have been a larger effort to split this into multiple projects. However, the tutorials project also contains a large number of demos, and this will remain in the ASF repository (it has no external dependencies). We will continue to maintain all three projects. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
> Ok, per the recommendations on the legal-discuss thread and here (and > just to make sure we're fully in keeping with the spirit of ASF > policies), I've removed the offending files from the tag Just ones that actually are license incompatible? > (and copied the branch to the tag) Yes, thank you. That is the correct practice. We want a tag. As sebb said, tags are cheap. > Note: I did NOT regenerate the release archives because there's no > need - nothing has changed from their perspective. OK. > p.s. on the trunk, we've just migrated the demos sub-project and the > JFreeChart provider off of the ASF repository for good Were they license incompatible? I'd really like to have demos at the ASF, not just the core code. But they should be demos that the project is willing to maintain. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
Ok, per the recommendations on the legal-discuss thread and here (and just to make sure we're fully in keeping with the spirit of ASF policies), I've removed the offending files from the tag (and copied the branch to the tag), which can be found at: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/tags/v1.1/ Note: I did NOT regenerate the release archives because there's no need - nothing has changed from their perspective. This only related to what was in SVN that *wasn't* part of the release artifacts. Thus, I am not calling for a new vote -- the existing vote should proceed as planned. Thanks everyone for taking the time to look at this. I appreciate the due diligence you're putting into this, because I know it takes time to review someone else's release, and it's making the end result that much more solid. -T p.s. on the trunk, we've just migrated the demos sub-project and the JFreeChart provider off of the ASF repository for good (see http://code.google.com/p/pivot-demos/ and http://code.google.com/p/pivot-jfree/). We have multiple contributors working on various demos at any given time, and I'm not confident that relying on each of them to be a licensing expert is remotely workable, so it's much easier just to say "Pivot is at ASF -- demo applications for Pivot are at Google Code". On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Todd Volkert wrote: > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200904.mbox/browser > > Summary: > (a) Some consider SVN to be part of your distribution, and some don't, > so there's no true resolution there > (b) Per http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#transition-incubator, > this weighs on us less because we're an incubating project that had > these dependencies before we joined the ASF. > > Bottom line: > We'll remove those dependencies from SVN altogether in the trunk (and > thus for all future releases) by migrating them to Google Code -- just > to make sure there's no ambiguity about what's ASF-compliant and > what's not. But in the meantime, based on the two points above, this > shouldn't hold up the 1.1 release. > > -T > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Todd Volkert wrote: >>> We don't have any LGPL libraries in the distribution - only in SVN, for >>> some demos that aren't actually included in the distribution artifacts. >> >> Or dependencies of any kind, for that mater. The actual *release* is >> compliant with ASF's policies. If our SVN repository is not, that >> will be fixed as soon as I get an answer from legal, and I can strip >> out the code from the trunk as well as the tag, but all the while, the >> tarballs and zip files were compliant. >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
sebb wrote: > The SVN branch contains lots of .settings directories which are > Eclipse-specific; these aren't normally added to SVN as they tend to > vary between Eclipse installations. I think they should be deleted > from SVN. The .project and .classpath files may also vary, but are > less of a problem. But I would not consider this a release issue. That's something for the project to address on technical merit. > There are 11 jars in SVN demos/lib directory which are not in the > source or binary archives > Jars must not be stored in SVN unless the licence is suitable That is a valid concern, although should not effect the release packages, since the jar files are not present in them. The packages that would be put out are clean as far as anyone has indiated. That said, Todd, as far as I know, since SVN is a form of distribution, we can't have improperly licensed third party code in SVN. HOWEVER, while I see that you are planning to remove them, after checking with legal-discuss@, please do it only for things that actually have non-compatible licenses. For example http://groovy.codehaus.org/faq.html#licence suggests that Groovy is fine. I have not checked the others. > The SVN branch also contains a classes directory - these should not > normally be stored in SVN. Again, while I agree, this does not strike me as a release issue. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200904.mbox/browser Summary: (a) Some consider SVN to be part of your distribution, and some don't, so there's no true resolution there (b) Per http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#transition-incubator, this weighs on us less because we're an incubating project that had these dependencies before we joined the ASF. Bottom line: We'll remove those dependencies from SVN altogether in the trunk (and thus for all future releases) by migrating them to Google Code -- just to make sure there's no ambiguity about what's ASF-compliant and what's not. But in the meantime, based on the two points above, this shouldn't hold up the 1.1 release. -T On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Todd Volkert wrote: >> We don't have any LGPL libraries in the distribution - only in SVN, for some >> demos that aren't actually included in the distribution artifacts. > > Or dependencies of any kind, for that mater. The actual *release* is > compliant with ASF's policies. If our SVN repository is not, that > will be fixed as soon as I get an answer from legal, and I can strip > out the code from the trunk as well as the tag, but all the while, the > tarballs and zip files were compliant. > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
> We don't have any LGPL libraries in the distribution - only in SVN, for some > demos that aren't actually included in the distribution artifacts. Or dependencies of any kind, for that mater. The actual *release* is compliant with ASF's policies. If our SVN repository is not, that will be fixed as soon as I get an answer from legal, and I can strip out the code from the trunk as well as the tag, but all the while, the tarballs and zip files were compliant. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
>There are rules as to what 3rd party dependencies are allowed. > >For example, LGPL dependencies cannot be included in distributions; >furthermore, any such dependencies must be optional. That is not >something that can be fixed later. We don't have any LGPL libraries in the distribution - only in SVN, for some demos that aren't actually included in the distribution artifacts. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On 16/04/2009, ant elder wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Todd Volkert wrote: > > > Actually, it occurs to me that since the distribution archives don't > > have the offending code, we should be able to release 1.1 as packaged > > (pending the vote), and if legal-discuss says that we need to remove > > that stuff from SVN, that can be done after the fact. > > > > -T > > > > > > I agree. Disagree. There are rules as to what 3rd party dependencies are allowed. For example, LGPL dependencies cannot be included in distributions; furthermore, any such dependencies must be optional. That is not something that can be fixed later. See http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > These artifacts look ok to me now. Would be helpful to include RAT reports > for both the src and binary distributions next time. > > +1 > > >...ant > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Todd Volkert wrote: > Actually, it occurs to me that since the distribution archives don't > have the offending code, we should be able to release 1.1 as packaged > (pending the vote), and if legal-discuss says that we need to remove > that stuff from SVN, that can be done after the fact. > > -T > > I agree. These artifacts look ok to me now. Would be helpful to include RAT reports for both the src and binary distributions next time. +1 ...ant
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
Actually, it occurs to me that since the distribution archives don't have the offending code, we should be able to release 1.1 as packaged (pending the vote), and if legal-discuss says that we need to remove that stuff from SVN, that can be done after the fact. -T On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Todd Volkert wrote: >> As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN >> repository is considered as distribution too. >> >> Please check this, e.g. on legal-discuss. > > FYI, I have a question pending to legal-discuss - I'll post the answer > here when I hear back. > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
> As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN > repository is considered as distribution too. > > Please check this, e.g. on legal-discuss. FYI, I have a question pending to legal-discuss - I'll post the answer here when I hear back. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
> I've just tried a build on Win/XP, Java 1.6.0.
>
> This reports quite a few compilation warnings, for example:
>
> [javac] wtk\src\pivot\wtk\content\TreeViewFileRenderer.java:34:
> warning: sun.awt.shell.ShellFolder
> is Sun proprietary API and may be removed in a future release
> [javac] import sun.awt.shell.ShellFolder;
> [javac] ^
> [javac] wtk\src\pivot\wtk\content\TreeViewFileRenderer.java:89:
> warning: sun.awt.shell.ShellFolder
> is Sun proprietary API and may be removed in a future release
> [javac] ShellFolder shellFolder = null;
> [javac] ^
> [javac] wtk\src\pivot\wtk\content\TreeViewFileRenderer.java:91:
> warning: sun.awt.shell.ShellFolder
> is Sun proprietary API and may be removed in a future release
> [javac] shellFolder = ShellFolder.getShellFolder(file);
> [javac] ^
> [javac] 3 warnings
>
> Does Pivot only work on Sun JVMs?
We've since removed that dependency on the trunk, but the 1.1 release
does have 1 class that will break on a non-Sun JVM (note however that
OpenJDK has the Sun classes). Bottom line, yes for 1.1, but it's
since been rectified.
> [javac] core-test\src\pivot\core\test\PropertiesSerializerTest.java:37:
> warning: unmappable character for encoding Cp1252
> [javac] testMap.put("i18n", "┬Ç & Î?ÎÿΣÎóή"); //
> test some chars to encode ...
> [javac] ^
> [javac] 1 warning
>
> Also, the build file does not seem to run any tests, it only compiles them.
Darn Windows encoding. Yeah, we have a JIRA issue created to better
use unit testing -- right now, it's 99% a TODO :) I'll fix that file
on the trunk, but since we don't run any unit tests, this warning is
benign.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
>I've just tried a build on Win/XP, Java 1.6.0. > >This reports quite a few compilation warnings, for example: > >[javac] wtk\src\pivot\wtk\content\TreeViewFileRenderer.java:34: >warning: sun.awt.shell.ShellFolder > is Sun proprietary API and may be removed in a future release ... >Does Pivot only work on Sun JVMs? The ability to display native file system icons only worked on Sun JVMs. However, we have since removed this feature. It won't be included in the next release. >Also, the build file does not seem to run any tests, it only compiles them. Correct. Tests are currently run manually. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On 14/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote:
> Incubator PMC members:
>
> I've addressed the concerns brought up in the first vote and have
> re-rolled the distribution archives with the fixes. Specifically,
> here's what changed since the last vote:
>
> * Changed the JDK 1.5 system requirement in the BUILD file to be JDK
> 1.6 (which includes the StAX API and JavaScript engine). This enabled
> us to remove the stax*.jar and js*.jar files from the distribution and
> sidestep any potential issues with including them in the future. Note
> that the runtime system requirement is still JRE 1.5 -- this stricter
> 1.6 system requirement only applies to those who want to build Pivot
> from source.
>
> * Removed the LiveConnect "plugin.jar" from being included in the
> distribution, and added a note about the need for the library in the
> BUILD file. Also added a check in the build file to fail
> descriptively if the developer does not have the LiveConnect library
> on their classpath.
>
> * Removed JUnit from being included in the distribution, and listed it
> a system requirement in the BUILD file. Also added a check in the
> build file to fail descriptively if the developer does not have JUnit
> on their classpath.
>
> * Added the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License to the LICENSE
> file. Note that since we removed JUnit from the distribution, we no
> longer need to add the Common Public License to the LICENSE file.
>
> * Updated the servlet-api.jar to the one that ships with Tomcat 6.0,
> and updated the NOTICE file to explicitly state that the file comes
> from Apache Tomcat and is licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>
> I have re-posted the new distribution archives and the newly generated
> RAT reports to the following location:
> http://people.apache.org/~tvolkert/pivot/
>
> I have also checked the archives by running the following tests:
> * Unpacked all archives (zip and tar.gz, source and binaries) into
> distinct folders.
> * Verified the md5 and sha1 checksums of all archives
> * Verified the pgp signatures of all archives
> * Inspected the Javadoc included in the binary release
> * Built and ran a suite of proprietary Pivot apps against the binary
> JAR files from the command line (DesktopApplicationContext)
> * Built the "build", "doc", "dist", and "install" targets from within
> the source distribution and verified that the output was correct (by
> inspection).
> * Looked at the .txt RAT report to make sure that the remaining files
> without a license header were acceptable.
> * Made sure that my most recent changes are in the new artifacts.
I've just tried a build on Win/XP, Java 1.6.0.
This reports quite a few compilation warnings, for example:
[javac] wtk\src\pivot\wtk\content\TreeViewFileRenderer.java:34:
warning: sun.awt.shell.ShellFolder
is Sun proprietary API and may be removed in a future release
[javac] import sun.awt.shell.ShellFolder;
[javac] ^
[javac] wtk\src\pivot\wtk\content\TreeViewFileRenderer.java:89:
warning: sun.awt.shell.ShellFolder
is Sun proprietary API and may be removed in a future release
[javac] ShellFolder shellFolder = null;
[javac] ^
[javac] wtk\src\pivot\wtk\content\TreeViewFileRenderer.java:91:
warning: sun.awt.shell.ShellFolder
is Sun proprietary API and may be removed in a future release
[javac] shellFolder = ShellFolder.getShellFolder(file);
[javac] ^
[javac] 3 warnings
Does Pivot only work on Sun JVMs?
[javac] core-test\src\pivot\core\test\PropertiesSerializerTest.java:37:
warning: unmappable character for encoding Cp1252
[javac] testMap.put("i18n","┬Ç & Î?ÎÿΣÎóή"); //
test some chars to encode ...
[javac] ^
[javac] 1 warning
Also, the build file does not seem to run any tests, it only compiles them.
> With these changes, I'd like to call for another vote. Please vote by
> 6 PM UTC Friday, 4/17.
>
> [ ] +1 Publish
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -0
> [ ] -1 Don't publish
>
> Thanks
> -T
>
> -
> 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 Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
> As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN > repository is considered as distribution too. > > Please check this, e.g. on legal-discuss. Yep - I was just subscribing to legal-discuss right now to get an official answer :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote: > > The SVN branch contains lots of .settings directories which are > > Eclipse-specific; these aren't normally added to SVN as they tend to > > vary between Eclipse installations. I think they should be deleted > > from SVN. The .project and .classpath files may also vary, but are > > less of a problem. > > > We can remove these. > > > > There are 11 jars in SVN demos/lib directory which are not in the > > source or binary archives, viz. the flex, gdata and groovy jars. What > > are the licenses for those? They aren't mentioned anywhere I could > > find. Likewise the two jars in charts/lib. > > > That's because the build strips out anything that we're not legally > allowed to release. From what I've read on various ASF pages, the > ASF's legal concerns are only with what's distributed in releases, not > what's in SVN. > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN repository is considered as distribution too. Please check this, e.g. on legal-discuss. > > Jars must not be stored in SVN unless the licence is suitable - see > > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > > > > The SVN branch also contains a classes directory - these should not > > normally be stored in SVN. There does not appear to be any source for > > the Product.class binary file. > > > > The following source files/folders are present in SVN but missing from > > the source archive: > > > > charts\src\META-INF > > charts\src\pivot\charts\skin > > demos\src\pivot\demos\amf > > demos\src\pivot\demos\google > > > > Why is that? > > > These are all stripped out of the distribution for legal (licensing) > reasons. This applies to the classes directory you mention above. > > > - > 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 Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
> The SVN branch contains lots of .settings directories which are > Eclipse-specific; these aren't normally added to SVN as they tend to > vary between Eclipse installations. I think they should be deleted > from SVN. The .project and .classpath files may also vary, but are > less of a problem. We can remove these. > There are 11 jars in SVN demos/lib directory which are not in the > source or binary archives, viz. the flex, gdata and groovy jars. What > are the licenses for those? They aren't mentioned anywhere I could > find. Likewise the two jars in charts/lib. That's because the build strips out anything that we're not legally allowed to release. From what I've read on various ASF pages, the ASF's legal concerns are only with what's distributed in releases, not what's in SVN. > Jars must not be stored in SVN unless the licence is suitable - see > > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > > The SVN branch also contains a classes directory - these should not > normally be stored in SVN. There does not appear to be any source for > the Product.class binary file. > > The following source files/folders are present in SVN but missing from > the source archive: > > charts\src\META-INF > charts\src\pivot\charts\skin > demos\src\pivot\demos\amf > demos\src\pivot\demos\google > > Why is that? These are all stripped out of the distribution for legal (licensing) reasons. This applies to the classes directory you mention above. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On 16/04/2009, sebb wrote: > On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote: > > > > What's the SVN tag for the release? > > > > > > It's useful to be able to compare the source archive with SVN to check > > > if there are any missing or extraneous files. > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/branches/1.1/ > > OK, I've now done a comparison. The SVN branch contains lots of .settings directories which are Eclipse-specific; these aren't normally added to SVN as they tend to vary between Eclipse installations. I think they should be deleted from SVN. The .project and .classpath files may also vary, but are less of a problem. There are 11 jars in SVN demos/lib directory which are not in the source or binary archives, viz. the flex, gdata and groovy jars. What are the licenses for those? They aren't mentioned anywhere I could find. Likewise the two jars in charts/lib. Jars must not be stored in SVN unless the licence is suitable - see http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html The SVN branch also contains a classes directory - these should not normally be stored in SVN. There does not appear to be any source for the Product.class binary file. The following source files/folders are present in SVN but missing from the source archive: charts\src\META-INF charts\src\pivot\charts\skin demos\src\pivot\demos\amf demos\src\pivot\demos\google Why is that? > > I plan to copy this to tags once the release gets approved (since > > until then, we still need to make changes). > > > > > Tags are cheap, so one way round this is to create a Release Candidate Tag. > If changes are necessary, update branch and create new tag. > If all passes, the RC tag can be renamed to the release tag. > > > > > One minor problem I noticed: the LICENSE file contains some odd > > > characters towards the end which don't display well. > > > > > > Ah - probably 'cause I had emacs set to use UTF-8. I'll change that > > on the trunk, though imho, it shouldn't hold up the 1.1 release. > > > > > > - > > 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 Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote: > > What's the SVN tag for the release? > > > > It's useful to be able to compare the source archive with SVN to check > > if there are any missing or extraneous files. > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/branches/1.1/ > > I plan to copy this to tags once the release gets approved (since > until then, we still need to make changes). > Tags are cheap, so one way round this is to create a Release Candidate Tag. If changes are necessary, update branch and create new tag. If all passes, the RC tag can be renamed to the release tag. > > One minor problem I noticed: the LICENSE file contains some odd > > characters towards the end which don't display well. > > > Ah - probably 'cause I had emacs set to use UTF-8. I'll change that > on the trunk, though imho, it shouldn't hold up the 1.1 release. > > > - > 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 Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
> What's the SVN tag for the release? > > It's useful to be able to compare the source archive with SVN to check > if there are any missing or extraneous files. http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/branches/1.1/ I plan to copy this to tags once the release gets approved (since until then, we still need to make changes). > One minor problem I noticed: the LICENSE file contains some odd > characters towards the end which don't display well. Ah - probably 'cause I had emacs set to use UTF-8. I'll change that on the trunk, though imho, it shouldn't hold up the 1.1 release. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
>One minor problem I noticed: the LICENSE file contains some odd >characters towards the end which don't display well. Looks like it is encoded in UTF-8 for some reason (the others appear to use standard ASCII). We can easily change that, if necessary. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
What's the SVN tag for the release? It's useful to be able to compare the source archive with SVN to check if there are any missing or extraneous files. It's also useful to compare the tar and zip versions of the archives - it's not unknown for these to be different (ignoring differences in source file line endings, which may be intentional). In this case they are OK. One minor problem I noticed: the LICENSE file contains some odd characters towards the end which don't display well. On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote: > Can a few PMC members please check this out to see if I resolved all the > issues? > > Thanks, > > -T > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Todd Volkert wrote: > > Incubator PMC members: > > > > I've addressed the concerns brought up in the first vote and have > > re-rolled the distribution archives with the fixes. Specifically, > > here's what changed since the last vote: > > > > * Changed the JDK 1.5 system requirement in the BUILD file to be JDK > > 1.6 (which includes the StAX API and JavaScript engine). This enabled > > us to remove the stax*.jar and js*.jar files from the distribution and > > sidestep any potential issues with including them in the future. Note > > that the runtime system requirement is still JRE 1.5 -- this stricter > > 1.6 system requirement only applies to those who want to build Pivot > > from source. > > > > * Removed the LiveConnect "plugin.jar" from being included in the > > distribution, and added a note about the need for the library in the > > BUILD file. Also added a check in the build file to fail > > descriptively if the developer does not have the LiveConnect library > > on their classpath. > > > > * Removed JUnit from being included in the distribution, and listed it > > a system requirement in the BUILD file. Also added a check in the > > build file to fail descriptively if the developer does not have JUnit > > on their classpath. > > > > * Added the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License to the LICENSE > > file. Note that since we removed JUnit from the distribution, we no > > longer need to add the Common Public License to the LICENSE file. > > > > * Updated the servlet-api.jar to the one that ships with Tomcat 6.0, > > and updated the NOTICE file to explicitly state that the file comes > > from Apache Tomcat and is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. > > > > I have re-posted the new distribution archives and the newly generated > > RAT reports to the following location: > > http://people.apache.org/~tvolkert/pivot/ > > > > I have also checked the archives by running the following tests: > > * Unpacked all archives (zip and tar.gz, source and binaries) into > > distinct folders. > > * Verified the md5 and sha1 checksums of all archives > > * Verified the pgp signatures of all archives > > * Inspected the Javadoc included in the binary release > > * Built and ran a suite of proprietary Pivot apps against the binary > > JAR files from the command line (DesktopApplicationContext) > > * Built the "build", "doc", "dist", and "install" targets from within > > the source distribution and verified that the output was correct (by > > inspection). > > * Looked at the .txt RAT report to make sure that the remaining files > > without a license header were acceptable. > > * Made sure that my most recent changes are in the new artifacts. > > > > With these changes, I'd like to call for another vote. Please vote by > > 6 PM UTC Friday, 4/17. > > > > [ ] +1 Publish > > [ ] +0 > > [ ] -0 > > [ ] -1 Don't publish > > > > Thanks > > -T > > > > - > 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 Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
Can a few PMC members please check this out to see if I resolved all the issues? Thanks, -T On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Todd Volkert wrote: > Incubator PMC members: > > I've addressed the concerns brought up in the first vote and have > re-rolled the distribution archives with the fixes. Specifically, > here's what changed since the last vote: > > * Changed the JDK 1.5 system requirement in the BUILD file to be JDK > 1.6 (which includes the StAX API and JavaScript engine). This enabled > us to remove the stax*.jar and js*.jar files from the distribution and > sidestep any potential issues with including them in the future. Note > that the runtime system requirement is still JRE 1.5 -- this stricter > 1.6 system requirement only applies to those who want to build Pivot > from source. > > * Removed the LiveConnect "plugin.jar" from being included in the > distribution, and added a note about the need for the library in the > BUILD file. Also added a check in the build file to fail > descriptively if the developer does not have the LiveConnect library > on their classpath. > > * Removed JUnit from being included in the distribution, and listed it > a system requirement in the BUILD file. Also added a check in the > build file to fail descriptively if the developer does not have JUnit > on their classpath. > > * Added the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License to the LICENSE > file. Note that since we removed JUnit from the distribution, we no > longer need to add the Common Public License to the LICENSE file. > > * Updated the servlet-api.jar to the one that ships with Tomcat 6.0, > and updated the NOTICE file to explicitly state that the file comes > from Apache Tomcat and is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. > > I have re-posted the new distribution archives and the newly generated > RAT reports to the following location: > http://people.apache.org/~tvolkert/pivot/ > > I have also checked the archives by running the following tests: > * Unpacked all archives (zip and tar.gz, source and binaries) into > distinct folders. > * Verified the md5 and sha1 checksums of all archives > * Verified the pgp signatures of all archives > * Inspected the Javadoc included in the binary release > * Built and ran a suite of proprietary Pivot apps against the binary > JAR files from the command line (DesktopApplicationContext) > * Built the "build", "doc", "dist", and "install" targets from within > the source distribution and verified that the output was correct (by > inspection). > * Looked at the .txt RAT report to make sure that the remaining files > without a license header were acceptable. > * Made sure that my most recent changes are in the new artifacts. > > With these changes, I'd like to call for another vote. Please vote by > 6 PM UTC Friday, 4/17. > > [ ] +1 Publish > [ ] +0 > [ ] -0 > [ ] -1 Don't publish > > Thanks > -T > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
