I am cancelling this vote because we are preparing a new release candidate with the mentioned issue regarding onejar fixed. I will open a new vote this afternoon (I'll also try taking into account the comments wrt the RAT plugin).
Greetings, Sebastian 2013/3/21 Sergio Fernández <[email protected]> > I quickly check for other projects with similar issue, and the solution > they adopted to solve CAMEL-1765 (just do not use it) is not valid for us. > > > On 21/03/13 10:43, Sebastian Schaffert wrote: > >> Hi Nandana, >> >> I take back my suggestion, because the OneJar license says: >> >> "Including this file inside the built One-JAR file conforms with these >> terms." >> >> >> The Maven OneJar plugin automatically adds the license to the jar file >> (in the doc/ subdirectory). So this should at least be enough for the >> OneJar people. Is it also ok for the ASF? >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> >> Sebastian >> >> >> >> 2013/3/21 Sebastian >> Schaffert<sebastian.schaffert@**gmail.com<[email protected]> >> > >> >> Hi Nandana, >>> >>> thanks for pointing this out. Actually these files are added by the Maven >>> OneJar Plugin, which builds the jar file for the LDPath CLI. I was not >>> aware that it adds additional source files to the jar file that are not >>> from the project. To solve this issue, I propose that I create a new >>> release build including the license that you pointed out. Do you think it >>> is necessary to again restart the vote afterwards? >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> Sebastian >>> >>> >>> 2013/3/21 Nandana >>> Mihindukulasooriya<nandana.**[email protected]<[email protected]> >>> > >>> >>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Kudos for all the hard work pushing forward the release and sorry for >>>> not >>>> being able to check and provide feedback earlier on. I am a bit stuck >>>> catching up stuff after one week of travelling. >>>> >>>> One question, ldpath-3.0.0-incubating.jar (inside >>>> apache-marmotta-3.0.0-**incubating-ldpath.tar.gz) contains some source >>>> files >>>> from http://one-jar.sourceforge.**net/<http://one-jar.sourceforge.net/>. >>>> Was this intentional ? >>>> >>>> I find no reference to one jar licence in the LICENCE.txt >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Nandana >>>> >>>> [1] - >>>> http://one-jar.sourceforge.**net/one-jar-license.html<http://one-jar.sourceforge.net/one-jar-license.html> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Fabian Christ< >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/3/20 Fabian >>>> Christ<christ.fabian@**googlemail.com<[email protected]> >>>>> >: >>>>> >>>>>> Summary vote: 0 (for the moment) because I am unsure about the rat >>>>>> check. At least I am not really convinced that the license headers are >>>>>> fine in all cases. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> After the very constructive discussions on the RAT topic I came to the >>>>> conclusion that the podling is handling the license headers in a >>>>> profound way. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, I withdraw my previous +0 vote and vote with +1 for the >>>>> >>>> release. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Fabian >>>>> http://twitter.com/fctwitt >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Nandana Mihindukulasooriya >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > -- > Sergio Fernández > Salzburg Research > +43 662 2288 318 > Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II > A-5020 Salzburg (Austria) > http://www.salzburgresearch.at >
