Also, I think that it is important that *all* dependency licenses be documented in the source release. Speaking as a consumer, I need to know what dependencies will come in when I compile the code. Marking the dependencies as source inclusions or as compile time or as test dependencies or as package dependencies is a fine thing to do, but my strong feeling is that the license summary should be identical in the source distribution as with the binary artifacts.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: > One additional thought. As I'm thinking more about the NOTICE and LICENSE > files I think it would be really helpful to have some reviews from you guys > much earlier in the process than the next release vote. While the docs are > helpful and we'll do our best, I'm skeptical we'll get it exactly right on > our next attempt. Justin, would you be willing to review these changes > once we get them up so that we can make sure we're not making other foolish > mistakes? > > thanks, > Jacques > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > > > Sorry I didn't see Henry and Justin's comments until just now. Per > > Justin's primary concerns about the License stuff: I think we've just > made > > mistakes in the notice and license files as to exactly how we reference > > things. All the category B licenses are mvn binary dependencies (per the > > third party dependencies rules), not source inclusions. To address > > Justin's concerns, I've created the following JIRAs which we'll fix > > straight away: DRILL-1274 and DRILL-1275 along with adding additional > > requirements to DRILL-1271 in addition to Henry's previous notes on > NOTICE > > file. > > > > Given the following: > > > > - The mistakes are issues with documentation as opposed to invalid > > source inclusions > > - The vote was held open for 72 hours before being called > > - Release artifacts are already on the mirrors > > - This is a developer preview release with small distribution designed > > primarily to expand the contributor community > > - We plan on doing another release within a month where these can be > > corrected. > > > > I'm going to go forward with this release. > > > > Thanks again to everyone for all the helpful feedback. I believe we are > > making good progress. > > > > Jacques > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> > Ah, I saw disclaimer in the website [1] which I thought enough for > >> incubator. > >> > But checking the branding guide [2] seems like incubator need to > >> > include DISCLAIMER file along with NOTICE and LICENSE files, so this > >> > could be blocker? > >> > >> Given it has 3 +1 votes and a result been called it's really up to the > >> release manager. IMO it is a blocker, but at the very least I like to > see a > >> JIRA for it and it fixed for the next release. The LICENSE issues are > also > >> serious - but hopefully just a misunderstanding to what should go into a > >> LICENSE file. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Justin > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >> > >> > > >
