On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 18:12, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote: > Bernd Fondermann wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 18:25, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> The configure script is free license (it's in the header of the file). >>> IANAL >>> but based on my understanding of apache license requirements this makes >>> the >>> file a "TYPE A" license, as there are no other stated requirements wrt >>> notice, we are in compliance. >> >> I'm not saying that the license is incompatible, I am saying that you >> need to record third party contributions in the NOTICE file. >> >> See >> http://apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/NOTICE.txt >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/trunk/NOTICE.txt >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/NOTICE.txt >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/hbase/trunk/NOTICE.txt >> and probably many, many others > > Hi Bernd, we do have a notice file similar to your examples (actually we > have at least 5 of them) included in the release. I looked at these examples > you've included and I don't see any mention of autotools related files (like > configure). > >> PS: I don't think it is particulary nice to close a vote when there >> are ongoing discussions. > > You stated the following in your original email "I guess it is not safe to > release this as-is.". You didn't -1 the vote and you are implicitly saying > that you don't know and are just guessing.
Well, I'm not guessing any more than you do. :-) I didn't -1, because I've no binding vote anyway on this PMC. I just checked out the release and gave feedback, whether it's appreciated or not I'm not quite sure. > You don't point to any supporting > evidence for this statement such as explicit requirements from Apache. This is what I was referring to: http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice > Additionally I followed up immediately with our PMC chair and he said this > was not an issue. I then responded to your email. > > I will double check with Owen on this and ask him to comment on the thread. > If you could point to a specific apache document stating this requirement > that would help alot. This is a critical fix release that we are trying to > get out so resolving this ASAP is imperative. Imperative to whom? Hurrying a release never serves well. Votes at Apache should run for at least 72 hrs. It's also convenient to give a timezone and time when the vote ends, because EOD might be at different times for different people. If this is a security fix, however, I think a shorter timeframe is ok. But it is not labelled as such. Bernd > > Patrick > >> >>> Patrick >>> >>> Bernd Fondermann wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> There is foreign code in the release tar ball, which is not attributed >>>> to in the top-level LICENSE/NOTICE file. >>>> see for example >>>> src/c/configure >>>> So I guess it is not safe to release this as-is. >>>> >>>> It would be nice if the release artifacts would be named >>>> apache-zookeeper... >>>> but this more my personal taste than a requirement. >>>> >>>> Bernd >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 06:02, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hadoop PMC, >>>>> >>>>> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list. >>>>> >>>>> Patrick >>>>> >>>>> Hadoop PMC, >>>>> >>>>> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Patrick >>>>> >>>>> I've created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.2.1. This is a bug fix >>>>> release addressing a number of significant issues -- see the release >>>>> notes >>>>> for details. >>>>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and VOTE before the >>>>> *** vote closes EOD on Wednesday, September 2.*** >>>>> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.2.1-candidate-0/ >>>>> >>>>> Should we release this? >>>>> >>>>> Patrick >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >
