Various podlings including tuweni have had to handle downloading gradle
separately. It’s not unusual and not really a source code issue where the
correct boundary is drawn.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 8:42 PM, Rodric Rabbah wrote:
>
> We’ll sort it out I opened an
HI,
> We’ll sort it out I opened an issue to deal with it. We’re not the only
> Apache project that uses gradle.
No problem. Thanks for the quick response.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.
We’ll sort it out I opened an issue to deal with it. We’re not the only Apache
project that uses gradle.
I missed you raising gradle issue before, my bad.
-r
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 11:13 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> (and they are listed under the exclusions here [3]).
>
> I note th
Hi,
> (and they are listed under the exclusions here [3]).
I note that it lists gradle-wrapper.jar as an exclusion there as well, this is
not the case as jars containing compiled source code can’t be included in
releases. See the legal JIRA mention in my last email [1] for more info on this
Hi,
> As you found/noted in another email, gradle[w.bat] are Apache 2 licensed.
> For posterity, we discussed these files [1] and [2] as examples (and they
> are listed under the exclusions here [3]). Note that this is the first time
> anyone on this list has raised a licensing issue wrt gradle.
For future reference,
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/issues/4545 will address
updating the gradlew[.bat] scripts with licenses.
-r
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:27 PM Rodric Rabbah wrote:
> As you found/noted in another email, gradle[w.bat] are Apache 2 licensed.
> For posterity, we
As you found/noted in another email, gradle[w.bat] are Apache 2 licensed.
For posterity, we discussed these files [1] and [2] as examples (and they
are listed under the exclusions here [3]). Note that this is the first time
anyone on this list has raised a licensing issue wrt gradle. Since the
prob
We concluded it's not worth asking legal for an opinion on this matter and
we opted instead to change the mini to full licenses. We updated the repos
that have releases or are subject to upcoming releases. There are repos we
will not be releasing and will archive/retire pending discussion on our
pr
Hi,
> I created a pull request to update the license compliance [1] to replace
> MINI with FULL. As already noted we have replaced all the mini licenses
> with the full license across the relevant repos.
I quick search of your report shows source files still having the short header,
but I assum
I created a pull request to update the license compliance [1] to replace
MINI with FULL. As already noted we have replaced all the mini licenses
with the full license across the relevant repos.
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/pull/288
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 9:48 PM Justi
Hi,
I just took a look at your latests release and noticed it has a minor licensing
issue. In checking your voting thread, I see ether votes point to policy [1]
which I see still mentions using short headers on source files, but below you
stated this was no longer the practice? Re the licensing
HI,
+1 (binding)
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes correct
- LICENSE still needs some work
- NOTICE is fine
- no unexpected binary files
- all source files have ASF headers
These files [1][2] are missing a license header, and are 3rd party files (I
assume) whose license i
Hi,
The Apache OpenWhisk (incubating) community has voted [1] to release
version 0.10.0-incubating of the OpenWhisk Catalog. There were 4 +1 votes
from OpenWhisk PPMC members, but no votes from IPMC members.
The OpenWhisk Catalog is a curated catalog of Apache OpenWhisk packages to
interface w
13 matches
Mail list logo
