Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Calcite 0.9.1 (incubating)

2014-10-11 Thread Justin Mclean
HI, Changing my vote to +1 binding. > Here is a link to the [VOTE] [RESULT] email. Thanks for that exactly what I needed. > Is that link in the release, or did you find it via google? It has copyright Apache on the page so I assume it was the right one, the other at the apache URL needs a bi

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Calcite 0.9.1 (incubating)

2014-10-11 Thread Julian Hyde
On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > +0 (binding) Will change to +1 once PPMC vote is clarified. > > I checked: > - vote may need another +1 (see below) > - hashes and signatures correct > - artefacts have incubating in name > - DISCLAIMER exists > - LICENSE and NOTICE co

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > The meta-issue is that some here seem to be arguing that IP licensing > can be taken lightly because it's hard or annoying. That's not it. I am arguing that licensing should be as minimal as possible because that's in the interest of *users*.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

2014-10-11 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, +1 binding. I checked: - vote assumed OK (see below) - artefact name contains incubating - DISCLAIMER exits - LICENSE and NOTICE are correct for source package - signatures and hash good - All source files have apache headers - No unexpected binary files in artefact While Drill may depend on

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Calcite 0.9.1 (incubating)

2014-10-11 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Sorry here are the missing links from my last email. 1.http://www.hydromatic.net/ 2.http://www.hydromatic.net/calcite/team-list.html Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional co

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Calcite 0.9.1 (incubating)

2014-10-11 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, +0 (binding) Will change to +1 once PPMC vote is clarified. I checked: - vote may need another +1 (see below) - hashes and signatures correct - artefacts have incubating in name - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - all source files have Apache headers - no binary files in source

RE: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
Excellent. More eyes on these issues is great. Thanks for spending your time on this. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Ted Dunning Sent: ‎10/‎11/‎2014 1:34 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subje

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Ted Dunning
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > Should I just propose a PR since I'm making trouble about it? > Great idea. Keep in mind that the binary NOTICE file in Drill is generated automatically by the build code in the source distribution so any PR should be against that mechanism ra

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Sean Owen
Sounds OK to me too if that is the prevailing sentiment; I personally do not operate (non-ASF) OSS projects that way. It seems just within the letter of the law. What about this little transitive dep of Netty I mentioned? This is not a NOTICE issue, and I *think* this one is beyond interpreting aw

RE: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
+1, lets not second guess the intention of a third party project. Lets simply ensure *our* projects do what is required. If anyone here is concerned about the third party being unaware of the results of their distribution practices then that part of this discussion should move to the third part

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Sean Owen wrote: >> You are confusing different distributions. Netty provides a source >> distribution which does include a NOTICE file. Netty also provides binary >> (jar) distributions. These do not include a NOTICE file. > > I think this is a fair question.

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Sean Owen
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning >> wrote: >> > Netty's artifacts ("its distribution") do not include a notice. Thus, >> >> They most certainly do. Please download the distr

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: >> Netty's artifacts ("its distribution") do not include a notice. Thus, > > They most certainly do. Please download the distribution of Netty 4.0.20: > > https://github.com/netty/netty/relea

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Ted Dunning
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning > wrote: > > Netty's artifacts ("its distribution") do not include a notice. Thus, > > They most certainly do. Please download the distribution of Netty 4.0.20: > > https://github.com/netty/netty/r

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Sean Owen
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > Netty's artifacts ("its distribution") do not include a notice. Thus, They most certainly do. Please download the distribution of Netty 4.0.20: https://github.com/netty/netty/releases/tag/netty-4.0.20.Final and find the NOTICE.txt file. I

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Ted Dunning
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > Unfortunately, Netty does not include NOTICE.txt in any of its jars > for you. This text does not appear therefore in the Drill binary > distro. At least, I grepped up and down the whole distro and didn't > see it, and it's not in the Netty jars

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Sean Owen
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > >> Here's another example. Drill distributes Netty 4.0.20, which is AL2 >> licensed and contains a substantial NOTICE file with stuff like ... >> >> >> ---

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Ted Dunning
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > Here's another example. Drill distributes Netty 4.0.20, which is AL2 > licensed and contains a substantial NOTICE file with stuff like ... > > > --- > This product conta

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Sean Owen
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > It is a tortured and patently incorrect reading to assume that the license > requires TWO copies of such notices. Sure, but, nobody said that. The question is whether at least one copy is present, and ideally in the right place. Here's anothe

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

2014-10-11 Thread Sean Owen
That may be so, and I find this issue irritating to deal with, but I don't see that it has bearing on what is ultimately correct. I think that the guidance you refer to was wrong, according to the text of the licenses, and the link I pointed to. But even those are a bit ambiguous, so I raise the q

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Ted Dunning
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > Yes it means greater downstream burden, yes it may have originated > from a 'hack', but that doesn't seem to make the license not say what > it says. Obviously I'd rather not have to do this either. > It is a tortured and patently incorrect rea

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Ted Dunning
In any case, the NOTICE files included in every jar are preserved. The Drill binary release complies *exactly* with the language "include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file". There is no violation of OSS licenses going on here. On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

2014-10-11 Thread Ted Dunning
Drill has had previous releases stopped *precisely* because NOTICE had too much stuff in it. The items you mention are among these items. I think the release is satisfactory as is. On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > I am reading http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html

Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Sean Owen
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > I admire the good-faith efforts that the Spark (and Solr) folks have put > in attempting to comply with their interpretation of ASF requirements, but I > don't think we should encourage podlings to emulate the current state of their > licen

Bloated NOTICE files are evil

2014-10-11 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > I am reading http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html . Yes > LICENSE also needs to contain more things as well. Yes, there are > several situations where NOTICE does not need to change, but this is > the key sentence: > > "Aside from Apach

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

2014-10-11 Thread Sean Owen
I am reading http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html . Yes LICENSE also needs to contain more things as well. Yes, there are several situations where NOTICE does not need to change, but this is the key sentence: "Aside from Apache-licensed dependencies which supply NOTICE files of their own