Hi,

2013/3/22 Sebastian Schaffert <[email protected]>:
> The SHA1 checksum of the archive is
> 670d7c5d4d524acb86665f234dac4ade16be8da6.

Which archive are you referring to? I checked:

./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.zip
gpg:  GOOD
md5 : GOOD (08c056e68d0ce01e61e18258913aa74d)
sha1 : GOOD (9f3f6b0ca2122fda11cf8f68a7bd8abbed583fca)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.tar.gz
gpg:  GOOD
md5 : GOOD (ef7ee1f1e54a0e0dd09103b30c537767)
sha1 : GOOD (87c562b8acdf94bc4d2a458e3a27d01632b18c7c)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.zip
gpg:  GOOD
md5 : GOOD (75ac74d568dafa9e0db50ccd782f123b)
sha1 : GOOD (50b7e0a8f4bf6766d85814fa02ffb1edffeb7e56)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.zip
gpg:  GOOD
md5 : GOOD (5e10ab1d574d9960e81b6da378de81d5)
sha1 : GOOD (cf7755c50691f728e40198aba7097adca1ae6981)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.tar.gz
gpg:  GOOD
md5 : GOOD (1def0b50794ff1103cab983f27d06562)
sha1 : GOOD (3f0b0dbccc60155ab5281d2b396bc509297be058)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.tar.gz
gpg:  GOOD
md5 : GOOD (bb4d2d5bdcf7e816200d77f570021805)
sha1 : GOOD (6ccbf473c9e7b8179a8fcad78a26a4a88084d6c3)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.tar.gz
gpg:  GOOD
md5 : GOOD (fabc5f09d95db68f18e2e82fcd91b00f)
sha1 : GOOD (3f76460c5dbc7f93bef25c78333cc2685748c512)
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.zip
gpg:  GOOD
md5 : GOOD (483099c177ea5d653abd429eface6a35)
sha1 : GOOD (670d7c5d4d524acb86665f234dac4ade16be8da6)

The KEYS are okay but could be placed at a location like
http://marmotta.incubator.apache.org/KEYS

Checking ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.zip

LICENSE & NOTICE: "software based on Sgvizler license under a
MIT-style license" in NOTICE but
"Sgvizler Javascript library, which is available under a "MIT"
license" in LICENSE. Is there a difference? Not a problem for the
release.

"data based on JSON-LD Test Suite licensed under CC0 License" in
NOTICE but there is no info in LICENSE - what is CC0? Fix in future
releases.

BUILD: Success
Release matches tag: Okay

Checking
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.zip
LICENSE & NOTICE: "H2 Database Engine under The H2 License, Version
1.0" in NOTICE but in LICENSE there is no "H2 License". In LICENSE it
says "is dual licensed and available
under a modified version of the MPL 1.1 (Mozilla Public License) or
under the (unmodified) EPL 1.0 (Eclipse Public License)". You do not
include a copy of this modified versions. I am really not an expert
but there might be people who would argue that you need to include a
copy of such licenses in LICENSE. My understanding of the ASF policies
is that you should include copies of the license not just pointers.
People need to be able to verify the licenses without the need to
follow pointers to websites which may change. In doubt I would include
the license text.

Checking
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.zip
marmotta-installer-3.0.0-incubating.jar/META-INF: Missing LICENSE,
NOTICE, DISCLAIMER
marmotta.war: Missing DISCLAIMER

Checking
./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.zip
NOTICE has a list of included libs but the LICENSE does not list all
of them -> missing pointers to LICENSES

ldpath-3.0.0-incubating.jar/META-INF : Missing LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER

Checking staged repo:
2013/3/22 Sebastian Schaffert <[email protected]>:
> A staged Maven repository is available for review at:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemarmotta-013/

I checked arbitrary files in the staged repo. All JARs I checked are
missing the DISCLAIMER in META-INF. I assume this is a general problem
with the build system. But the DISCLAIMER has to be there.

Summary: I still believe that the NOTICE file is the wrong place for
listing included libs. It is for legal notices, only. Additionally, I
would suggest to include copies of licenses in the LICENSE file. But
since I am also still learning a lot about this legal stuff, others
may have another view on this. All information seem to be available so
this would not a blocker for this release.

But I am sorry, but because of the missing files in the released
artifacts, especially the missing DISCLAIMER which is a must of
incubating projects, I have to vote -1 for all artifacts except the
original source release package
(apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.zip), which is fine.

+1 for releasing apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.zip
-1 for releasing the binary artifacts produced from the source release

Best,
 - Fabian

--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt

Reply via email to