Re: Reviewing license / notice and bundled software

Hi, > It is useful to mention all 3rd party inclusions in the LICENSE file, > including ones under AL2.0. That would help with Apache licensed software by 3rd parties, but misses out with bundled software made by the ASF. Perhaps it would be helpful if there was a list of all bundled software

Re: [VOTE] Apache Slider 0.40-incubating RC0

Hi, > The Kokki files (https://github.com/samuel/kokki/tree/master/kokki) did not > have any header. We added the Apache License and mentioned Kokki in the top > level LICENSE. Let us know if there is an alternate way to handle this > situation. Thanks for that, I was just curious to what happen

Re: Reviewing license / notice and bundled software

In the "Bundling an AL Font" thread on legal-discuss, sebb said: "It is useful to mention all 3rd party inclusions in the LICENSE file, including ones under AL2.0: - Makes it much easier for the consumer to ensure that the code uses a license with which they are comfortable. - it helps the ASF pro

Re: [VOTE] Apache Slider 0.40-incubating RC0

Thanks Justin. The Kokki files (https://github.com/samuel/kokki/tree/master/kokki) did not have any header. We added the Apache License and mentioned Kokki in the top level LICENSE. Let us know if there is an alternate way to handle this situation. We can incorporate it by next release. -Sumit

Re: [VOTE] Apache Slider 0.40-incubating RC0

+1 binding. Signature/required files/headers/hashes all look good. -jakob On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > +1 binding > > - Vote passed > - incubating in release name > - signatures and hashes correct > - DISCLAIMER exits > - LICENSE and NOTICE good > - No binary

Re: [VOTE] Apache Slider 0.40-incubating RC0

Hi, +1 binding - Vote passed - incubating in release name - signatures and hashes correct - DISCLAIMER exits - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No binary files in source release - all source files have correct headers - can compile from source I did notice one little odd thing and it's probably nothing

Re: Reviewing license / notice and bundled software

Hi, Lets take for instance slider as they have just put up an RC for voting. Slider bundles a few things and may have some Apache Licensed software bundled. Can you tell easily what those bits are? And if so what versions? Source headers here are no help as all Apache source headers are the sa

Re: [VOTE] Apache Slider 0.40-incubating RC0

Here is the result thread. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-slider-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCABCXrRRR-NkJfy65Hw2sxqHO7D4HFJEWWWmP_sycGoasUWLwqA%40mail.gmail.com%3E And, you are right, its 5 +1 votes with 4 of them binding. *I guess I am still learning the specifics.* thanks -Sumit

Re: [VOTE] Apache Slider 0.40-incubating RC0

Hi, > A vote was held on the developer mailing list and it passed with 5 +1s. > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-slider-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCABCXrRT2GgfTogkWzCghi1NcLm18ydp7W2MbQ4PrR73EqODODg%40mail.gmail.com%3E A [VOTE][RESULT] would be nice to have. How many of those votes are

[NOTICE] George Reyes for Usergrid Committership

Hi IPMC, The Usergrid (Incubating) PPMC have VOTE'd to add George Reyes to join Usergrid and obtain Committership rights. VOTE: *http://s.apache.org/jF1 * RESULTS: *http://s.apache.org/Amf * Thank you Lewis On Behalf of Usergrid PPMC -- _

Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Argus Proposal

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Establishing trust and a track record of inclusion and > openness will be essential for Argus to achieve your objectives, if I > understand them correctly. I encourage you to address concerns raised on > this thread about the complexion of

Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Argus Proposal

> Working this out within the community makes more sense, rather than doing this outside. Not attempting would be counterproductive. Does this not argue directly against the rationale of the Argus proposal? Please correct me if I am wrong, but this suggests addressing security concerns within exis

Re: Reviewing license / notice and bundled software

Hi, > Are you using RAT to evaluate releases for licenses? Or are you doing > pre-release activities? Apache Rat is a great help and certainly points you in the right direction. But even then a lot of the time you have to go and manually check if something been Apache licensed or not, or try a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Slider 0.40-incubating RC0

+1 binding - verified signature and checksums, verified licenses, built from source and ran tests On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Sumit Mohanty wrote: > Hello, > > This is a call for a vote on Apache Slider 0.40.0 incubating release. > Thanks to everyone who have contributed to this release. >

[VOTE] Apache Slider 0.40-incubating RC0

Hello, This is a call for a vote on Apache Slider 0.40.0 incubating release. Thanks to everyone who have contributed to this release. A vote was held on the developer mailing list and it passed with 5 +1s. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-slider-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCABCXrRT2GgfTo

Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Argus Proposal

Andrews, thanks for your feedback. My responses are inline. Regards Bosco On Jul 17, 2014, at 11:41 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Thank you for writing back with a detailed clarification. > > Regarding encryption at rest, HDFS is adding it as HDFS-6134, so likely > there will be a new core feat

Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Argus Proposal

Thank you for writing back with a detailed clarification. Regarding encryption at rest, HDFS is adding it as HDFS-6134, so likely there will be a new core feature option for the ecosystem to consider shortly. ​> I don’t feel one technology or one company or one small group or one approach can sol

Re: Reviewing license / notice and bundled software

I guess it is about mvn dependency:tree analysis. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-07-17 16:17 GMT+02:00 Craig L Russell : > Are you using RAT to evaluate

Re: Reviewing license / notice and bundled software

Are you using RAT to evaluate releases for licenses? Or are you doing pre-release activities? RAT will look at every file in a release and try to identify the license. Are you looking for something that RAT can't do? Craig On Jul 17, 2014, at 2:59 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > >> I had to

Re: Reviewing license / notice and bundled software

Hi doesn't http://creadur.apache.org/ helps? I in particular thinks to http://creadur.apache.org/tentacles/ If there is no bundle it doesn't solve the whole issue but that's our code so we can enhance it to support maven more deeply. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannib

Re: Reviewing license / notice and bundled software

Hi, > I had to indeed review lots of the dependencies by hand to evaluate > license issues. It is not simple. it certainly can be complex but just wondering if we can make the more reasonable cases easier to review / easier for incubator projects. Justin -

Re: Reviewing license / notice and bundled software

When I did this review for Spark, I used Maven's license plugin: http://mojo.codehaus.org/license-maven-plugin/ mvn license:aggregate-add-third-party It creates a report of all transitive deps and their license, according to pom files. I had to indeed review lots of the dependencies by hand to e