incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lahiru Gunathilake <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Airavata 0.2-Incubating RC5
Date Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:51:30 GMT
Thank you Ate for awesome comments about the RC5.... ! Thank you for your
time !!


On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Ate Douma <> wrote:

> 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 on line # 2085: "APACHE JACKRABBIT SUBCOMPONENTS"
> 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 necessary/required.
> - 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:
>>>> incubating/RC5/apache-**airavata-0.2-incubating-**SNAPSHOT-src.tar.gz<>
>>>> Binary release:
>>>> incubating/RC5/apache-**airavata-0.2-incubating-**SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz<>
>>>> 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:**mattmann/<>
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++**++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++**++++++
>>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++**++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++**++++++

System Analyst Programmer
Indiana University

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message