Sure, it does say that autoconf is ok, but those m4 files are not exactly autoconf, right? I'm not exactly sure what they are, but I think that when they say autoconf, they probably mean scripts autoconf generated.
I have started a thread with legal to see if we can get a clarification. Please feel free to add to the discussion if I haven't characterized it properly. -Flavio On 12 Jun 2014, at 14:20, Ivan Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > In the link you posts, it basically says autotools stuff is ok. > Also, all the m4 files except gtest.m4 have there other bsd style license > license. gtest.m4 comes from gtest, which is new bsd, so perhaps this > should also include in the file, though in source file the license > wasn't explicitly there. > > In any case, I think we should remove the hedwig cpp client from the > source, and possibly all of hedwig, because it's not being used by > anyone and it's not being maintained. This was something I hoped to > discuss after 4.2.3 was out though. > > -Ivan > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 01:40:23PM +0100, Flavio Junqueira wrote: >> At this point, I'd rather proceed with the release candidate if there is no >> problem. I'm basically trying to determine if this is ok or not according to >> ASF. What you say makes sense, but I'd like to have some reference to point >> to. >> >> The command I used was this one: >> >> java -jar ../apache-rat-0.10/apache-rat-0.10.jar . >> >> -Flavio >> >> On 12 Jun 2014, at 13:30, Ivan Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I mean what command did you run? It should have been >>> mvn apache-rat:check >>> >>> These files have always been excluded from rat. 2 are auto generated, >>> one is the changes.txt which noone adds a license to. The others are >>> for the hedwig cpp configure script. These can't have a new license >>> added, as we didn't write them. Shipping the m4 files with the script >>> is the standard way to make a autotools project configurable. >>> >>> If you want to remove them, we need to remove the whole cpp client, >>> which I have no problem with, as it's pretty much unmaintained. >>> >>> -Ivan >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 01:15:17PM +0100, Flavio Junqueira wrote: >>>> Directly from the command line, I haven't done it through maven, but what >>>> matters to me is that I'd like to know if we have a story for those files. >>>> In this page: >>>> >>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#which-files-contain-license >>>> >>>> It says that every file needs a license. This other page: >>>> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html >>>> >>>> Talks about non-apache licenses, but I didn't really see anything that >>>> applies to us. I'm basically trying to determine if it is ok to exclude >>>> those and based on what arguments. I just don't want us to get in trouble >>>> as >>>> other projects that haven't been releasing artifacts properly. >>>> >>>> -Flavio >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ivan Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:00 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Bookkeeper 4.2.3 release candidate 0 >>>> >>>> This are all explicitly excluded in the pom. How did you run rat? >>>> >>>> -Ivan >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:20:05AM +0100, Flavio Junqueira wrote: >>>>> I ran the rat tool and the one thing that called my attention was this: >>>>> >>>>> Unapproved licenses: >>>>> >>>>> ./CHANGES.txt >>>>> >>>> ./bookkeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/bookkeeper/proto/DataFormats.ja >>>> va >>>>> ./hedwig-client/src/main/cpp/aminclude.am >>>>> ./hedwig-client/src/main/cpp/m4/ax_boost_asio.m4 >>>>> ./hedwig-client/src/main/cpp/m4/ax_boost_base.m4 >>>>> ./hedwig-client/src/main/cpp/m4/ax_boost_thread.m4 >>>>> ./hedwig-client/src/main/cpp/m4/ax_doxygen.m4 >>>>> ./hedwig-client/src/main/cpp/m4/gtest.m4 >>>>> >>>> ./hedwig-protocol/src/main/java/org/apache/hedwig/protocol/PubSubProtocol.ja >>>> va >>>>> ./hedwig-server/src/main/resources/p12.pass >>>>> >>>>> I'm just wondering if we have a justification for these. >>>>> >>>>> -Flavio >>>>> >>>>> On 10 Jun 2014, at 16:36, Ivan Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This is the first release candidate for Apache Bookkeeper, version >>>>>> 4.2.3. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a bugfix release for 4.2.2. >>>>>> >>>>>> Notable fixes and improvements include new utilities to give >>>>>> administrators better visibility of cluster state (BOOKKEEPER-746), >>>>>> improvements to allow for smoother rolling upgrades >>>>>> (BOOKKEEPER-745), fixes to ledger polling to ensure metadata updates >>>>>> aren't missed >>>>>> (BOOKKEEPER-710 & BOOKKEEPER-747) and shading of protobuf libraries >>>>>> to avoid conflicts when included with other version (BOOKKEEPER-708). >>>>>> >>>>>> The full release notes is available at: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12325 >>>>>> 569&styleName=Html&projectId=12311293 >>>>>> >>>>>> *** Please download, test and vote by June 16th 2014, 10:00 UTC+0. >>>>>> *** >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided >>>>>> for convenience. >>>>>> >>>>>> Source and binary files: >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~ivank/bookkeeper-4.2.3-candidate-0/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Maven staging repo: >>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebookkeep >>>>>> er-1000/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The tag to be voted upon: >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/zookeeper/bookkeeper/tags/release-4 >>>>>> .2.3 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bookkeeper's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: >>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/zookeeper/bookkeeper/dist/KEYS >>>>>> >>>>>> Please download the the source package, and follow the README to >>>>>> build and run a bookkeeper and hedwig service. >>>>> >>>> >>
