incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating
Date Sat, 26 Nov 2011 01:07:21 GMT
On 25 November 2011 20:11, ant elder <> wrote:
> 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 <>
>>>> 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; it
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> 4) Your NOTICE file includes lot's of "This product includes
>>>>> developed by" Your notice file should only include notices that
>>>>> are *required* to have. Don't include acknowledgements in your notice
>>>>> just for completeness.
>>>>>>>> Just to be clear: why not?
>>>>> *>>> The NOTICE file should be as short as possible, but no
>>>>> *
>>>>> 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.

In which case, any unnecessary entries in the NOTICE file should be
removed at the same time please.

>   ...ant
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message