incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom White <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Whirr version 0.4.0-incubating
Date Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:02:02 GMT
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM, sebb <> wrote:
> On 18 March 2011 16:43, Stefan Bodewig <> wrote:
>> On 2011-03-18, sebb wrote:
>>> But the main issue is that the binary distribution contains lots of
>>> 3rd party products which are not mentioned in either the NOTICE file
>>> or the LICENSE file.
>> They likely are supposed to be in the - unfortunately empty - license
>> files inside the lib directory.
>>> Whether it requires attribution or not, 3rd party product licenses
>>> must be recorded in the LICENSE file.

Right, we definitely need to fix this, per

>>> The standard method is to include the text in the file, but it may be
>>> allowable to just include a pointer to the license elsewhere in the
>>> distribution.
>> This pointer is missing, you are correct.
>>> I think these issues are sufficient to block the release.
>> Of the binary "convenience build".  If the whirr project wanted to
>> release the source tarball alone, the problems you have found wouldn't
>> apply.  The source tarball looks good to me.
> The NOTICE file includes attributions for two products that are not present.
> AIUI it's important that NOTICE only contains *required* attributions
> because the NOTICEs have to passed on to downstream users.

Both products are present (jsr250-api-1.0.jar and jersey-core-1.4.jar)
and these are the only ones that contain required attributions (as far
as I can tell). So I believe the NOTICE file is correct.

> The ------------ divider lines should be removed (not a blocker) and
> the year should be updated.
> Also, the lib directory is full of licence files for products that are
> not present.
> It's not necessary for everything in SVN to be in the source archive,
> though everything in the source archive must be in SVN (or be
> derivable directly from it)
> This is confusing.

It looks like the old LICENSE files in lib were mistakenly not removed
when the JAR versions were updated (e.g. guava-r06-LICENSE.txt ->
guava-r08-LICENSE.txt) or removed since the last release. I agree this
is confusing and they should be removed.

Thanks for taking the time to check the release candidate.


>> Stefan
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message