Could someone help take a look at this? This should be pretty simple. We
really want to proceed with the voting of the first release of Kafka.
Thanks,
Jun
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.comwrote:
Folks,
Thanks for giving feedback on the LICENSE and NOTICE
Folks,
Thanks for giving feedback on the LICENSE and NOTICE file issues. We've
worked on the feedback and would appreciate if you could take a look and
see if there are no red flags.
Please find the LICENSE, NOTICE files and release artifacts for the next RC
here -
At Forrest we have stacks of supporting products to manage.
Each time that we decide to bundle a new one, we try to deal
with its license and potential notices at the time.
Read their LICENSE. If it has a required notice then comply
by adding it to our NOTICE file. If it does not, then there
is
Normally, when you ship the dependency together with your own
product/project, then (AFAIK) that bigger work needs the NOTICE. If
you don't ship it, let's say that you call it a System Requirement
or Optional Plugin, then you don't need it.
ALSO, more importantly, it looks like Voldemort depends
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I'll open a discussion for this on the
whirr list/jira.
Patrick
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
Normally, when you ship the dependency together with your own
product/project, then (AFAIK) that bigger work needs the NOTICE.
On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
Apache 2.0 license, and as such
I've opened a couple LEGAL jiras on this stuff to nail it down:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-118
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-119
Thanks all!
Patrick
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Kevan Miller
On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B,
is this (B) a third-party work or not? Are the parties in this
case singular the ASF or the TLPs? Specifically, do I need to
include the NOTICE file from B in the NOTICE
Thanks Kevan.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B,
is this (B) a third-party work or not? Are the parties in this
case singular the
There is a sample NOTICE file linked [1] from ASF Source Header and
Copyright Notice Policy [2]
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-examplenotice
[2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
As someone trying to generate these documents, I'm actually finding
these
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a sample NOTICE file linked [1] from ASF Source Header and
Copyright Notice Policy [2]
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-examplenotice
[2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
As
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Jun Rao jun...@gmail.com wrote:
Does Apache has tools (like rat) to extract all the needed license? Digging
out the license manually is both labour intensive and error prone.
The rat community has started working on whisker[1] (and some other
tools) but we
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
built as a customary courtesy as part of the release attempt. This
includes quite a
On 2 December 2011 09:33, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
built as a
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:55 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 December 2011 09:33, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
On Dec 2, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
So I hope it's clear why it's frustrating to
have this rule suddenly pop up when it's apparently not enforced in
the majority of cases (and then to be asked to go and open JIRAs for
each of these projects on top of it).
This requirement is
On 1 December 2011 06:16, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
I notice that the NOTICE has this incomplete statement:
This product includes the scala runtime and compiler
(www.scala-lang.org) developed by EPFL, which includes
the following license:
There is not any
On 1 December 2011 02:29, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
There are spurious === lines at
As it stands, either the NOTICE file is wrong, or the LICENSE file is
wrong, because the NOTICE file should not mention 3rd party products
that are not in the LICENSE file.
Thanks for the feedback! As I have already mentioned, we are tracking a bug
to fix all non-blocker changes to the NOTICE
On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
As it stands, either the NOTICE file is wrong, or the LICENSE file is
wrong, because the NOTICE file should not mention 3rd party products
that are not in the LICENSE file.
Thanks for the feedback! As I have already mentioned, we are
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see licenses
missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
paranamer-2.2.jar -- http://paranamer.codehaus.org/info/license.html
The link you reference puts
Does Apache has tools (like rat) to extract all the needed license? Digging
out the license manually is both labour intensive and error prone.
Thanks,
Jun
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
As it
On 1 December 2011 21:58, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see licenses
missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
paranamer-2.2.jar --
Kevan-
You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
built as a customary courtesy as part of the release attempt. This
includes quite a few jars that are not included in the source tree
since binary
Hi,
The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/LICENSE
The previous vote thread or release artifacts are here -
Also, we haven't ignored the fact that the NOTICE file must ideally be as
short as possible.
To track this issue, we've filed a bug -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-219 and will be fixing it for
the next release.
Thanks,
Neha
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Neha Narkhede
I notice that the NOTICE has this incomplete statement:
This product includes the scala runtime and compiler
(www.scala-lang.org) developed by EPFL, which includes
the following license:
There is not any following license.
I also notice that the LICENSE file has copyright notices.
-
29 matches
Mail list logo
