incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Airavata 0.2-Incubating RC5
Date Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:35:20 GMT
I've reviewed this SNAPSHOT release candidate primarily on compliance and 
completeness of the L&N files as requested.

One other thing I noticed: the README points to

Seems like the domain is under control of this project as it 
does renders as a frameset pointing to the official airavata incubator site.
I'm curious what the ASF policy is on such separate project related domains? And 
especially with respect to ownership/control of it. Who actually does own this 
domain? Should this be a concern to the ASF?

Now concerning the -src and -bin release candidates and the L&N files, I think 
this has been greatly improved since the last candidate.
Kudos everyone who helped with this: quite a lot of work!

But I can't help it to point out a few remaining quirks :)

* source NOTICE and LICENSE file seem fine by me ;)

* binary LICENSE file
- it contains some duplications of the same (set of) licenses, I think starting 
Actually that part which follows and which possible has been copied from a 
Jackrabbit provided LICENSE file is a bit more nicely formatted (e.g. like for 
the javax.jcr part).
- I haven't checked if *every* bundled jar is now properly covered in the 
LICENSE file (where applicable) but with the size (2k+ lines) and coverage of 
the LICENSE file I kind of now 'trust' they are ;)

* binary NOTICE file
- I think there are some unneeded/unwanted entries still. Some notices and 
copyright statements should not legally be needed nor are they requested.
For instance for BSD/MIT like licenses which already are provided for verbatim 
in the LICENSE file itself, there is no need to (and thus should not) be covered 
*also* in the NOTICE file. Having those in the LICENSE file should be enough. 
And certainly so if the 3rd party artifact doesn't have or require an explicit 
NOTICE file itself. I think this applies to the NOTICE entries for SLF4J, DOM4J, 
ICU4J, Jettison, etc. Please do check if each of these notices really are 

- A different thing is the NOTICE provided for commons-logging (1.1.1).
The commons-logging jar come with a NOTICE file of its own (being an ASF release 
it should). But IMO the additional content copied verbatim from that NOTICE file 
can be ignored and thus removed. It concerns the following section:

   This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown organization'
   - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3
   - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12
   - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1

Only log4j is actually bundled with airavata and as an ASF artifact doesn't need 
extra NOTICE coverage. And as the other referenced artifacts aren't included or 
used there is no need to 'honor' this part from the common-logging NOTICE file.
The ASL 2.0 license sections 4.d) says: "[...], excluding those notices that do 
not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works."

Another thing I noticed in the binary distribution: some of the samples included 
come with both src and (maven build) target folders, for example the 
/samples/complex-math-service as well as a few others.
You might consider cleaning this up a bit further.
In addition, those samples modules also have additional NOTICE and LICENSE files 
in their src/main/resources folders, but AFAIK these are not or no longer 
used/bundled in the build artifact. Possibly outdated/leftover?

IMO none of the above really are release blockers, so my overall impression: 
awesome work guys!

Regards, Ate

On 04/24/2012 05:28 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> I haven't seen anyone respond to this yet and I'm in a tight spot myself to make
> time for it.
> I'll try to free up some by tomorrow though, please accept my apologies for the
> delay.
> Ate
> On 04/22/2012 06:40 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>> Sorry to cross post here, but I think we need to get help from the Incubator
>> vets and not just
>> burden Ate here. I also think it would be great to get a fresh opinion.
>> Incubator licensing/notice file experts, if you could help out the Airavata
>> community here,
>> I would sincerely appreciate it.
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>> On Apr 22, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Suresh Marru wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> Before I call a vote on the 0.2-incubating release, Can you please verify if
>>> all license and notice file requirements are met correctly?
>>> Source release:
>>> Binary release:
>>> Hi Ate,
>>> Thank you very much for all the help and guidance so far on the L, N, D
>>> requirements. Can you please verify, if the above releases confirm the legal
>>> guidelines? It will be great if you can find time to verify so we can save
>>> time with voting iterations. I really its very time taking and will
>>> appreciate your effort.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Suresh
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> Senior Computer Scientist
>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>> Email:
>> WWW:
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

View raw message