incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ant elder <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating
Date Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:11:40 GMT
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <> wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>>>> Alan,
>>>>>> It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list;
>>>> was my understanding that votes take 72 hours.
>>>> Because the only change was in the NOTICE and DISCLAIMER files from
>>>> previous RC, our champion (Chris C) suggested we could run a quicker lazy
>>>> 24 hour vote.
>>> Yeah, I'm not sure the vote can be shortened.  I could be wrong.  If it can
then I totally agree with the inclination to get goin' with this release.  I'm sorry it's
had so many first and starts.
>>>>>> Anyway, I've found some problems in the NOTICE file in that Kafka
>>>> uses/ship NUnit but it's not in the NOTICE file.
>>>> Quoting sebb and Kafka's champion (Chris C) discussed this in the last vote
>>>> -
>>>>>>> 4) Your NOTICE file includes lot's of "This product includes
>>>> developed by" Your notice file should only include notices that you
>>>> are *required* to have. Don't include acknowledgements in your notice file
>>>> just for completeness.
>>>>>>> Just to be clear: why not?
>>>> *>>> The NOTICE file should be as short as possible, but no shorter.
>>>> *
>>>> Having said that, we also don't have any jar like "NUnit" in the release
>>>> artifacts.
>>>  B     ./bin/../clients/csharp/lib/nunit/2.5.9/nunit.framework.dll
>>> Reading the license
>>> it seems to me that an acknowledgment  in the product documentation is required.
 Am I misreading their license?  (wouldn't be the first time)
>> I don't remember that license coming up before so the easiest way to
>> find out is to bring it up at legal-discuss@. A similar question was
>> raised in and the
>> conclusion there was it didn't have to be in the NOTICE. This is not
>> exactly the same but it is similar so maybe it would be ok for this
>> release could go ahead assuming its ok and raise a legal JIRA to
>> confirm that for the future?
> The tgz files are the product that's being distributed.  It's clear that the NUnit license
requires an acknowledgement somewhere in the product.

Earlier you said nunit was missing from the NOTICE so thats what I was
replying about, but I think what you meant was that it was missing
from the LICENSE too right? This does appear to ship the nunit dll and
not mention that in the LICENSE file and that does seem like something
that needs to be fixed.


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

View raw message