From general-return-10983-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Mon Sep 18 10:27:17 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 49667 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2006 10:27:16 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Sep 2006 10:27:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 2252 invoked by uid 500); 18 Sep 2006 10:27:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 2112 invoked by uid 500); 18 Sep 2006 10:27:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 2101 invoked by uid 99); 18 Sep 2006 10:27:12 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:27:12 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [66.111.4.25] (HELO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.25) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:27:03 -0700 Received: from frontend3.internal (frontend3.internal [10.202.2.152]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0EC1DA72FD for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat1.internal ([10.202.2.160]) by frontend3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:26:20 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: LlcSEI7ImBboAbAL7dA8d2h2BeUw6Y1kr7YhGxg90weh 1158575179 Received: from [10.0.0.101] (host-87-74-127-123.bulldogdsl.com [87.74.127.123]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF5F703B for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <450E7449.5000905@odoko.co.uk> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:26:17 +0100 From: Upayavira Organization: Odoko Ltd User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Podling Release Requirement (WAS: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Felix to TLP status) References: <7a31ebb30609130622p3f28e66av12834616295ff006@mail.gmail.com> <4508295C.3040406@bellsouth.net> <5c902b9e0609131732j2ecfe9d3ueaa48659864c3893@mail.gmail.com> <4508C5D5.9050707@odoko.co.uk> <5c902b9e0609140123x66f4d79atbf4e5be254196e7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5c902b9e0609140123x66f4d79atbf4e5be254196e7@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 9/13/06, Upayavira wrote: >> So how does Felix proceed now? Accept that the rules have just changed >> on it, after spending some months under the view that a release _wasn't_ >> necessary to graduation, and go back and do something it would have done >> months ago had it not been told to do otherwise? > > The issue, as I see it, is that the Incubator PMC is being asked to > certify that the Felix PPMC is able to manage itself as a top-level > project. A critical activity of a PMC is to conduct a release. > Another point with conducting a release while in the Incubator is that > it generally flags any legal issues as people check it. So when a > PPMC decides not to conduct a release and asks to graduate immediately > as a TLP, we needs to be doubly sure that the due diligence has been > completed. Hence, it's fair to expect probing questions - especially > when the last status report indicated that a release was forthcoming. > > First off, Felix doesn't seem to have a NOTICE or LICENSE files in its > trunk (hint: it's in the wrong directory and in the wrong format), nor > does Felix have the appropriate license blocks (hint: see > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html). > > Based on a quick superficial glance, I also see files in the tree that > aren't ours, such as: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/felix/trunk/http.jetty/src/main/java/org/osgi/service/http/HttpContext.java > > Yes, it's licensed under the ALv2, but AFAICT, there is no documented > provenance for these files: it bears a CVS tag and refers to the OSGi > Alliance as the copyright owner. We should be citing that in the > LICENSE and NOTICE files. Instead, all I see in FELIX-9 > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-9) is a discussion that > some code should be donated - no reference is made in the file or > commit message or JIRA as to where it came from. It sounds like there > might be an IP clearance form on file somewhere if this code was > donated - then those copyright blocks can go away in favor of our > standard one. If we don't have clearance, then we have to make sure > that we do not ever remove that license block in those files. But, if > we make any changes to those files, then our license block needs to be > added as well. > > It also seems that Felix has forked Tomcat's servlet code - which is okay: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/felix/trunk/javax.servlet/src/main/java/javax/servlet/GenericServlet.java > > However, the copyright years have been altered from the original file > - removing 2004 and adding 2005 - which isn't okay: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/servletapi/branches/servlet2.3-jsp1.2-tc4.x/src/share/javax/servlet/GenericServlet.java > > > (Ideally, Felix should resync with Tomcat once they update their > license block to remove the copyright years; but Tomcat may not be > updating Servlet 2.3. I'm unsure if an ASF project can relicense > forked code from another project - I'll ask on legal-discuss@...) > > These instances cause my antennae to be raised to there being more > issues throughout the Felix codebase. I don't believe these are > serious issues at all, but these are issues that must be cleaned up > before graduation should be considered. (I don't have the time to do > a more thorough review: that's the job of the Felix PPMC.) Thank you for your comments. This now is clearly enough feedback to show that we've got more work to do. I will recall the vote until we have done a release in order to clear up the sort, and have shown that release to the incubator PMC. > Finally, as Noel pointed out, we have not seen a proposed Felix PMC > roster or who the PMC chair will be. The Board requires that before > even placing such an item on its agenda. That part is easy, and I agree that not mentioning the proposed PMC chair was an omission. We've already discussed (and voted on) the issue, and plan to follow the Jackrabbit model - I would be the initial PMC chair. I will then be grooming Richard Hall to take over the role, as he is clearly the best suited individual for the job - just needs more experience of working within an ASF environment (don't we all, but that's another question :-) ) Regards, Upayavira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org