Hi Betrand, all, thanks for checking the release.
Meanwhile the LGPL issue with * XOM (xom:xom:1.2.5 - http://xom.nu) has been resolved in STANBOL-549 One question: Should issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-550 concerning clarification of unfamiliar licenses be mentioned somewhere in the NOTICE file? Regarding the dual license problem https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-548 I always understood the we have to identify and list all licenses of a component. That's also why I included, e.g. the LGPL licensing text in the LICENSE file according to [1]. My conclusion was that we also have to list all the licenses in the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file. But I agree that it would be nicer if the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE would mention dual licensed artifacts explicitly. [1] http://apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses With the made changes in the release branch, we can create an RC5 and cancel the vote for RC4. My plan is to create the RC5 this afternoon. Best, - Fabian Am 23. März 2012 14:51 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]>: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > <[email protected]> wrote: >> ...1) Checking the (very cool) DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file I notice this... > > I've also listed at STANBOL-550 the licenses found in that file that > were unfamiliar to me, with links and details, so that we don't have > to lookup that information again for the next release. > > -Bertrand -- Fabian http://twitter.com/fctwitt
