Hi,
> Or is your feeling that inclusion of the LICENSE is enough of a prominent
> statement?
In this case yes I can't see any reason to include it in NOTICE and LICENSE
inclusion would be enough. But I'd be interested in what other IPMC people
think.
Either way it’s not a big issue, at worst a
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The reason is that the license is a Cat B. Otherwise, I would advise to
> > include it in your notices file as well. NiFi does this well IMHO
> >
> https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/d838f61291d2582592754a37314911b701c6891b/nifi-
Hi,
> The reason is that the license is a Cat B. Otherwise, I would advise to
> include it in your notices file as well. NiFi does this well IMHO
> https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/d838f61291d2582592754a37314911b701c6891b/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-framework-bundle/nifi-framework/nifi-web/nifi-web
Perfect, thanks Dan.
I'll point out that after looking at the PR I do see one more issue. For
the font files, can you point to a public location for them? google tends
to provide a free service hosting a number of fonts.
The reason is that the license is a Cat B. Otherwise, I would advise to
i
Thanks, John..we do have a new PR that intends to address these
issues (currently only in master):
https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/pull/285
I intend to examine that tomorrow morning and pull it in to 1.8 if all
looks good -- there will be a few changes needed to address di
On 2/15/17, 4:37 PM, "John D. Ament" wrote:
>Dan,
>
>So here's my point of view. Justin's provided some more context on how to
>shape licenses. If you feel very strongly that the release should go out
>the door, the way it is, then I am OK with changing my vote to a +1. If
>however, you're l
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM Marvin Humphrey
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood
> wrote:
>
> > Personally, the reason why I'm asking about the
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood wrote:
> Personally, the reason why I'm asking about the impact is to better make a
> judgment call on whether to block or not. I
Hi,
> Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
>
> `In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
> distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
The pointer mentioned there is a file
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood wrote:
> > You're right -- fixing the license file is not a huge effort (now that
> > we understand what's expected..). The effort is in going thru the
> > voting process again..
> >
> > I'll
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood wrote:
> You're right -- fixing the license file is not a huge effort (now that
> we understand what's expected..). The effort is in going thru the
> voting process again..
>
> I'll go with whatever you recommend..
Folks, we're on RC *nine*. The IP
You're right -- fixing the license file is not a huge effort (now that
we understand what's expected..). The effort is in going thru the
voting process again..
I'll go with whatever you recommend..
thanks.. Dan
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:58 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> I'd like to know the effor
I'd like to know the effort required from your POV to fix the license
file. Alex's description matches my expectations, thanks for clarifying
it. I would rather not create a release that didn't match the licensing
requirements, but will be OK if you come back saying its a huge effort
(however, I
Thanks, Alex..
John -- would it be reasonable to fix this in the next release barring
any other major issues?
thanks.. Dan
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" wrote:
>
>>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
>>http://w
On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" wrote:
>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
>http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
>
>`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
>distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
>
Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that ca
-1 license file still needs a lot of work.
MIT licenses need to be explicitly included in the license, not just
linked. In general, the license contents need to be in the LICENSE file,
not just links to the licenses. In some cases, its done like this (full
license headers copied) and in others t
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Dan Kirkwood wrote:
> The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9":
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9
>
> The source distribution (also linked in the release notes) is here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:28 AM Dan Kirkwood wrote:
> Minor correction to the previous email -- the artifacts for RC9 are
> located here
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
> .
>
> Please review this RC and vote..
>
>
>
> The Apache Traffic Co
Minor correction to the previous email -- the artifacts for RC9 are
located here
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/.
Please review this RC and vote..
The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a
proposal to release Apache Traffic Cont
Hello Incubator PMC,
The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a
proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating. We now
kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this
incubator release.
The VOTE RESULT is here:
https://lists.apache.org/th
21 matches
Mail list logo
