Hi Andy, I already removed the old tag because we are preparing a new release candidate with the fixes included. The old commit has the commit ID:
0e4ecfbdd1ad58a4bb44ff2ee98edc6e991a63b6 (from 3 days ago). Thanks for going through the list. I have already added all the missing DISCLAIMER files and fixed the NOTICE and LICENSE where appropriate. I did not remove the libraries from the NOTICE file so far. We planned to restart the release candidate in a few minutes, but if you first want to create a list this is very much appreciated and we can still delay the next release candidate until you provide it. Greetings, Sebastian 2013/3/25 Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> > On 25/03/13 11:02, Sebastian Schaffert wrote: > >> Hi Fabian, >> >> thanks for pointing out the thing with the disclaimer. I added the >> necessary remote resources so they will be included. How do we continue, >> should we restart the vote completely (with 72h)? Or is it enough I >> re-upload and you check again? >> > > If you change the code tree, then the src will change. The src must > build the binaries. > > I'll go through Fabian's message and draw up a list of points, then we can > sort each one out. Some are from before where we don't seem to have a > common understanding of what is necessary and what can be delayed to next > release. > > What I have seen done is to list the changes on the next RC so it's clear > what been done to people reading the email list. > > Andy > > I've having trouble with git repo - I now only see tag "import". Did the > tag for the release get undone and not redone? Is it pushed? > > > >> Rest of the comments below: >> >> 2013/3/25 Fabian Christ <[email protected]> >> >> >>> The KEYS are okay but could be placed at a location like >>> http://marmotta.incubator.**apache.org/KEYS<http://marmotta.incubator.apache.org/KEYS> >>> >> >> >> They will :) >> >> >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >> Fixed. >> >> >> >>> "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. >>> >>> >> Creative Commons 0 (basically public domain). >> >> http://creativecommons.org/**publicdomain/zero/1.0/<http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/> >> >> >> 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. >>> >>> >> There is no real doubt here. I copied the NOTICE from the webpage, where >> they say it is sufficient. I anyways appended it to the LICENSE of the >> webapp and installer distributions. >> >> >> >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> This is built by the onejar application. The LICENSE, NOTICE, and >> DISCLAIMER should be in all the jar files the super-jar contains. I'll >> check if there is a way to also include these files in the superjar. >> >> Greetings, >> >> Sebastian >> >> >
