On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Bryant Luk <bryant....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Kevan, > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Leo Simons wrote: >> >> <snip> >>> >>> Please note, I didn't actually vote on the release, I just pointed out >>> a few things that probably ought to change. I didn't vote because I >>> don't want to go and review all those very many binaries (or the build >>> process that creates them) and I'm not familiar enough with the >>> codebase to somehow "know" that all those binaries are somehow ok. If >>> I had thought these minor tidbits that I raise are enough to actually >>> vote -1, I would've made that clear, sorry that it wasn't. >>> >>> Even if I _did_ vote, releases are majority votes, and 2 +1 beats a >>> single -1. Its just you need 3 votes. >>> >>> In other words, all you need is one more +1 :) >> >> Nick and Bryant, >> I agree with Leo that the more accurate LICENSE/NOTICE files are >> preferrable. I probably would not change my vote for this reason. However, >> I'll make this easier... Digging some more, I found the following issues, >> which I missed earlier: >> >> axiom-api and axiom-impl jars >> * both contain NOTICES with "Portions copyright IBM" statements. Those >> aren't mentioned in your NOTICE >> >> xml-apis >> * NOTICE contains copyright statements for ibm, sun, and w3c >> * contains additional license documentation (i.e. >> LICENSE.dom-documentation.txt, LICENSE.dom-software.txt, and >> LICENSE.sax.txt). If applicable, they need to be reflected in the wink >> license. >> >> jcip-annotations >> * i believe that this is licensed under creative commons attribution, yet >> is not mentioned in either the license or the notice >> >> I'm changing my vote to a -1. >> >> --kevan > > I've added the axiom and jcip-annotations notices (and removed the > unnecessary notices I think) in: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/NOTICE > Added the Creative Commons license for jcip-annotations to: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/LICENSE > > I would appreciate a review of these files for the binary release . > The source release will have the basic Apache License and notice as > originally suggested by Leo. Need to work some simple Maven magic but > wanted to see if these files were ok first. > > Upon some further investigation, I'll remove the xml-api dependency > since that isn't absolutely required for the Wink/Abdera functionality > to work (so everything that was in the release candidate minus the > xml-apis would also be in the future binary distribution) so that's > why I didn't add the xml-api notice/license. > > Thanks for any feedback anyone can provide. >
I've moved the binary distribution NOTICE and LICENSE file to the following location which will be used only for the binary distribution: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/wink-scripts/wink-dist/binarydist/NOTICE http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/wink-scripts/wink-dist/binarydist/LICENSE The following will be used for the source only distribution: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/LICENSE http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wink/trunk/NOTICE Sorry for the noise but would still appreciate feedback for the above to make sure we're doing it right. Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
