On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:06 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 9:21 PM Eric Covener wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 8:04 PM, John D. Ament
>> wrote:
>> > That's an interesting one. I'm a bit surprised if that would be
>> considered
>> > OK for this scenario. Sure, HTTPD is
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 9:21 PM Eric Covener wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 8:04 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > That's an interesting one. I'm a bit surprised if that would be
> considered
> > OK for this scenario. Sure, HTTPD is usually used as a standalone
> server.
> > What happens if you
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 8:04 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> That's an interesting one. I'm a bit surprised if that would be considered
> OK for this scenario. Sure, HTTPD is usually used as a standalone server.
> What happens if you embed HTTPD in your own data parser? You're
> effectively violatin
Changing topic to avoid polluting the vote.
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 7:09 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The problem I see is how autoconf files are actually applied with their
> > headers and licenses.
>
> Interesting. So are you saying it would be OK to remove the original
> license header
Hi,
> The problem I see is how autoconf files are actually applied with their
> headers and licenses.
Interesting. So are you saying it would be OK to remove the original license
headers and replace it with an ASF one?
> If I look within HTTPD for instance there's no headers
Like this file [1]
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:21 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Changing my vote back to +1 (binding).
>
> > Ok, based on the information provided I'm changing to a +1. We should
> > figure out if glog can really be considered acceptable, but if it is
> > confirmed as optional then its moot per t
Hi,
Changing my vote back to +1 (binding).
> Ok, based on the information provided I'm changing to a +1. We should
> figure out if glog can really be considered acceptable, but if it is
> confirmed as optional then its moot per the discussion in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-280
Ok, based on the information provided I'm changing to a +1. We should
figure out if glog can really be considered acceptable, but if it is
confirmed as optional then its moot per the discussion in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-280
John
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:46 AM Wang Wei wrot
Hi all,
We made glog an optional dependency in this ticket
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SINGA-166 and the commit history is
here
https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/commits/master/include/singa/utils/logging.h
I removed glog from .travis.yml in this PR https://github.com/apache/
in
Hi,
Changing my vote to be also -1 (binding) until the license / dependancy issue
sorted, but everything else looks good.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands,
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:34 PM John D. Ament wrote:
> Wei,
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:19 PM Wang Wei wrote:
>
> John,
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:24 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
>
> > Wang,
> >
> > First, please review [1], especially the Note section.
> >
> Thank you for the information.
>
Wei,
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:19 PM Wang Wei wrote:
> John,
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:24 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
>
> > Wang,
> >
> > First, please review [1], especially the Note section.
> >
> Thank you for the information.
>
> > Second, even if I were to change my vote from -1 to +1 d
John,
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:24 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> Wang,
>
> First, please review [1], especially the Note section.
>
Thank you for the information.
> Second, even if I were to change my vote from -1 to +1 do you have enough
> votes? Only Justin has voted +1. Or were you carrying o
+1 (binding)
Verified signature and checksum
Checked updates to LICENSE, NOTICE, and RELEASE_NOTES files
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Wang Wei wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Could you revise your vote as the glog issue is resolved?
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:25 AM, John D.
Wang,
First, please review [1], especially the Note section.
Second, even if I were to change my vote from -1 to +1 do you have enough
votes? Only Justin has voted +1. Or were you carrying over Alan Gates'
vote?
[1]: http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:40 PM Wan
Hi John,
Could you revise your vote as the glog issue is resolved?
Thanks.
Best,
Wei
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:25 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Fair enough.
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:48 PM Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> > https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/COPYING
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 201
Fair enough.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:48 PM Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/COPYING
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
>
> > Niclas,
> >
> > So I'll point out a couple of things.
> >
> > 1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone e
https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/COPYING
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Niclas,
>
> So I'll point out a couple of things.
>
> 1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone else (e.g. you) voted a +1
> my -1 would be moot.
>
> 2. I mentioned in my response that
Niclas,
So I'll point out a couple of things.
1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone else (e.g. you) voted a +1
my -1 would be moot.
2. I mentioned in my response that the main issue is that I can't find a
listed license for glog and I was choosing GPL because I found a source
file with
Sure, but in this case it is;
1. Singa depends on Glog
2. Glog is BSD licensed
3. Glog use a build tool chain that is GPL'd and includes a build script
to compensate for missing toolchain tools.
4. Singa doesn't use Glog's build toolchain
Your (John) argument is that Glog is incorrectly li
Hi John,
Thank you for checking the license of Glog.
The document building instructions are here
https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/blob/master/doc/README.md
Glog is an optional dependency, which is declared in the installation page
http://singa.apache.org/en/docs/installation.html#from-sou
We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on this type of
topic. Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required dependencies. Henri
and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final result.
Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional features.
We can probabl
I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG, i.e. the
equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to the ASF
software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this and may even
have checked with their Legal team...
Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my mem
-1 at least I think there's an issue.
While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is not valid.
There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml. It confirmed
what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your required
packages.
You require glog [1], which I
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked:
- name contains incubating
- signatures and hashes good (you might consider using something other than md5
for the hash)
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE good
- All source files have ASF headers
- No unexpected binary files
- Can't compile from source but likely
+1 (non-binding)
I've checked:
LICENSE file
no binaries
hash and signature correct
Would appreciate PMC members to help check and cast their votes.
Anh.
On 30 January 2017 at 09:24, Wang Wei wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache
> SIN
26 matches
Mail list logo
