incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira>
Subject [REVOKED] Felix Gradutation Vote (was Re: Podling Release Requirement)
Date Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:31:23 GMT
Based upon the below feedback from Justin, the Felix PPMC have agreed
that there is additional work to be done on Felix before the project is
ready for graduation, including making a release so as to clarify issues
that the release process throws up.

On that basis, I revoke the graduation vote for Felix until such a time
as we have resolved any outstanding issues.

Regards, Upayavira

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 9/13/06, Upayavira <> wrote:
>> So how does Felix proceed now? Accept that the rules have just changed
>> on it, after spending some months under the view that a release _wasn't_
>> necessary to graduation, and go back and do something it would have done
>> months ago had it not been told to do otherwise?
> The issue, as I see it, is that the Incubator PMC is being asked to
> certify that the Felix PPMC is able to manage itself as a top-level
> project.  A critical activity of a PMC is to conduct a release.
> Another point with conducting a release while in the Incubator is that
> it generally flags any legal issues as people check it.  So when a
> PPMC decides not to conduct a release and asks to graduate immediately
> as a TLP, we needs to be doubly sure that the due diligence has been
> completed.  Hence, it's fair to expect probing questions - especially
> when the last status report indicated that a release was forthcoming.
> First off, Felix doesn't seem to have a NOTICE or LICENSE files in its
> trunk (hint: it's in the wrong directory and in the wrong format), nor
> does Felix have the appropriate license blocks (hint: see
> Based on a quick superficial glance, I also see files in the tree that
> aren't ours, such as:
> Yes, it's licensed under the ALv2, but AFAICT, there is no documented
> provenance for these files: it bears a CVS tag and refers to the OSGi
> Alliance as the copyright owner.  We should be citing that in the
> LICENSE and NOTICE files.  Instead, all I see in FELIX-9
> ( is a discussion that
> some code should be donated - no reference is made in the file or
> commit message or JIRA as to where it came from.  It sounds like there
> might be an IP clearance form on file somewhere if this code was
> donated - then those copyright blocks can go away in favor of our
> standard one.  If we don't have clearance, then we have to make sure
> that we do not ever remove that license block in those files.  But, if
> we make any changes to those files, then our license block needs to be
> added as well.
> It also seems that Felix has forked Tomcat's servlet code - which is okay:
> However, the copyright years have been altered from the original file
> - removing 2004 and adding 2005 - which isn't okay:
> (Ideally, Felix should resync with Tomcat once they update their
> license block to remove the copyright years; but Tomcat may not be
> updating Servlet 2.3.  I'm unsure if an ASF project can relicense
> forked code from another project - I'll ask on legal-discuss@...)
> These instances cause my antennae to be raised to there being more
> issues throughout the Felix codebase.  I don't believe these are
> serious issues at all, but these are issues that must be cleaned up
> before graduation should be considered.  (I don't have the time to do
> a more thorough review: that's the job of the Felix PPMC.)
> Finally, as Noel pointed out, we have not seen a proposed Felix PMC
> roster or who the PMC chair will be.  The Board requires that before
> even placing such an item on its agenda.
> HTH.  -- justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message