On Jun 22, 2012, at 7:05 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > On Jun 21, 2012, at 10:46 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> >> On Jun 21, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Obeying dependency license provisions is not an ASF policy, it's a legal >>>> requirement. Fairness is immaterial. >>>> >>>> If you bundle the bits, you must deal with the licensing and you must get >>>> it >>>> right. >>> >>> Sure, but that's not an issue here. The legal requirements are >>> satisfied, as was established at length during the Kafka 0.7.0 >>> release. -C >> >> This reflects my sentiments as well. > > Alan, > That seems to be at odds with your previous email(s) on this thread. IIUC, I > think you're more of the mind that the legal requirements are not being met, > but should be fixed in the next release, not this one.
As I think I mentioned in other emails. I am all for *vetting* the dependencies to make sure that they follow licensing provisions and are compatible with ASF policy. This *must* be done before *any* release. What I claim can be put on hold until the next release is the extensive documentation of those dependencies in the LICENSE/NOTICE that you seem to be proposing. Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
