Hi,
I reverted our notice files to hand edited versions and updated them. I
added some missing information and license files.
The launchpad app and webapp have the aggregated information of the
included bundles/jar and the root of our source tree has the aggregated
information of all bundles
Hi Carsten,
Thank you very much. I will try to look into these files today or
tomorrow.
Regards
Felix
Am Mittwoch, den 11.06.2008, 09:40 +0200 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler:
> Hi,
>
> I reverted our notice files to hand edited versions and updated them. I
> added some missing information and licens
Hi Carsten,
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...I reverted our notice files to hand edited versions and updated them. I
> added some missing information and license files
Thanks for this - I'm wondering why the following are present in the
launchp
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Thanks for this - I'm wondering why the following are present in the
launchpad/app notice, but not in launchpad/webapp?
Thanks for spotting this - it's a mistake :) I've fixed it.
See SLING-494 for discussion and TIKA-91 for the required notice.
Ah thanks, I've add
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> Note also that the current notice files include several things that,
>> according to Roy in his revision 662927 changes, do not require
>> notices
> ...Yes, I know - for now I really w
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be great if some people could check everything, so that we're safe
> for our upcomming release.
There's FeedParser license information at the end of trunk/LICENSE. If
we use LICENSE.* files for non-ALv2 l
) code in the
respective NOTICE file.
To help showing the NOTICE files I am also going to add a page in the
Web Console which allows easy display of the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
Regards
Felix
Hi,
yes, I was not sure about the Derby/Xerces stuff. If you think that we
need all of this, please go ahead and make the changes.
Thanks
Carsten
Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It would be great if some people could ch
n-ASF) code in
the
respective NOTICE file.
To help showing the NOTICE files I am also going to add a page in the
Web Console which allows easy display of the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
Hey, I'm all for people having opinions on development and credits and
documentation. NOTICE and LICENSE a
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Please, folks, I am not even a Sling committer. I am speaking as the
author of the Apache License. Don't screw with what I have changed.
I have way more experience in these matters than everyone else at the
ASF combined. If you put stuff in NOTICE that is not legally req
downloads the
source code and runs "mvn install". Those files exist to define the
licensing conditions on redistribution of *these* bits and nothing more.
Maven downloads are separate distributions under their own licenses.
The LICENSE and NOTICE files always have some scope. The s
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:46 AM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am struggling to understand what is going on here. LICENSE and NOTICE
> refer to the copyrightable material in *this* package. Surely we don't
> distribute Derby and Xerces in *this* package, do we? Jetty? WTF?
just things that
you release, not the ASF. The LICENSE and NOTICE files will
be different in each of those binaries. If we need to manage
them within the source tree, then they should be clearly delineated
from the source NOTICE/LICENSE files. I would put them inside
the build script itself,
I just talked with Felix offline about this and we came up with the
following solution which should meet the requirements.
As Roy points out we have to distinguish between source and binary
distributions (and yes, the ASF does only source releases, I know,
however for convenience we're creatin
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 12.06.2008, 09:18 +0200 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler:
> I just talked with Felix offline about this and we came up with the
> following solution which should meet the requirements.
>
> As Roy points out we have to distinguish between source and binary
> distributions (and yes
On Jun 12, 2008, at 12:18 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
I just talked with Felix offline about this and we came up with the
following solution which should meet the requirements.
As Roy points out we have to distinguish between source and binary
distributions (and yes, the ASF does only sourc
Sure, but as long as Carsten plans to publish also the binary packages
we should make sure that those binaries come with proper LICENSE and
NOTICE files.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Hi all,
In Rev. 667038 I just commited a proposal to commons/log bundle [1] to
what we have been discussing:
The README.txt file is adapted from the README.txt file
of the Jackrabbit API project.
The top level LICENSE and NOTICE files only pertain to the
source code itself, which contains
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Rev. 667038 I just commited a proposal to commons/log bundle [1] to
> what we have been discussing:
Looks good.
> - The disclaimer is not part of the README.txt (yet), maybe
> this should be added as a sectio
On Jun 13, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
- The src/main/resources/META-INF(LICENSE file has no reference
to the LICENSE.slf4j file
The LICENSE.* files seem pretty obvious, so I'm not sure if the
reference is really needed. I'd say we either leave it as is (no
references), or include
Hi,
I've changed the handling of the notice/licence files as discussed
recently. Each module has now a readme as well.
So I think it's time to review this stuff and fix what needs to be fixed
for a release. I hope we get through all of this by monday and can
finally release Sling :)
Most o
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...I've changed the handling of the notice/licence files as discussed
> recently.
> Each module has now a readme as well
Thanks - I think the NOTICE files added under
src/main/resources/META-INF are what my SL
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...I've changed the handling of the notice/licence files as discussed recently.
Each module has now a readme as well
Thanks - I think the NOTICE files added under
src/main/resources
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Revision 668065 looks good to me.
Great, thanks Bertrand.
So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before
cutting a release. Jukka? Roy?
(Please note that we're currently waiting for a release of the Felix SCR
module, the vote period is open but
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jukka?
Looking at it now.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>
>> Revision 668065 looks good to me.
>
> Great, thanks Bertrand.
>
> So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before cutting a
> release. Jukka? Roy?
>
> (Please note that
HI,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before cutting a
> release.
Looks pretty good. Some comments:
a) Some LICENSE files refer to feedparser tests, but I couldn't find
them anywhere. Is the
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HI,
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before cutting a
>> release.
>
> Looks pretty good. Some comments:
>
> a)
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) Some LICENSE files refer to feedparser tests, but I couldn't find
> them anywhere. Is the reference needed?
I grepped the whole tree for related files, but couldn't find any. So
I removed the license entries in re
Jukka Zitting wrote:
HI,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before cutting a
release.
Looks pretty good. Some comments:
a) Some LICENSE files refer to feedparser tests, but I couldn't find
t
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> ...d) Many of the generated bundles don't have complete NOTICE files (for
>> example commons.log doesn't mention SLF4J even though SLF4J classes
>> are included), but I wouldn't treat that as a b
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>
>> HI,
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before cutting
>>> a
>>> release.
>
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>> ...d) Many of the generated bundles don't have complete NOTICE files (for
>>> example commons.log doesn't m
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Karl Pauls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>> b) Should we include "Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org" in trunk/NOTICE?
>>>
>> Hmm, Roy says we don't have to (at least
Jukka Zitting wrote:
This is also my understanding, i.e. we should include the attribution in NOTICE.
Ok, so please go ahead and just add it - i'm fine with that.
We already explicitly included the LICENSE file (LICENSE.slf4j in the
example), so the question is whether we also need to inclu
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> This is also my understanding, i.e. we should include the attribution in
>> NOTICE.
>
> Ok, so please go ahead and just add it - i'm fine with that.
OK.
> Actually if we can have everything
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Karl Pauls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
b) Should we include "Copyright (c
On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before
cutting a release. Jukka? Roy?
I was on my way to Basel ... I haven't checked all the files, but the
commits looked fine and I don't see any reason to hold up the release
vot
38 matches
Mail list logo
