incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Brown <>
Subject Re: [Vote] Release Apache Pivot 1.1
Date Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:06:46 GMT
PMC Members,

It has been almost a week since we put this release to a vote. We think we've covered all
the bases and would really like to get it out the door. Again, the release artifacts and RAT
report are here: 

Please take a few moments to vote on this release. We really appreciate it.

Greg Brown
Pivot Development Lead

On Monday, April 13, 2009, at 07:32AM, "Todd Volkert" <> wrote:
>> web/lib/servlet-api.jar : It looks like you mention this under your
>> notice file but I don' t see details about it's license.
>I wasn't sure how to handle our external binary dependencies, so I
>asked on our podling's dev@ list (  In the
>case of this file, the answer seemed to be that there was no issue
>with including it.  I interpreted that as not needing anything in the
>NOTICE or LICENSE file, but if that's not true, then I'll make changes
>as necessary.
>> wtk/lib/plugin.jar : I don' t see this mentioned in notice or license
>This file is included in the JRE, which we list as a system
>requirement. We only include it in the source distribution because
>it's not in the classpath by default when you compile, so we had to
>put it in a known place.
>> wtk/stax-api1.0-jar : There was some discussion about the license of
>> this jar in legal-discuss recently (see. LEGAL-42 [1]), and looks like
>> people have been recommending using the jar from Geronimo which is
>> under Apache license (geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec-1.0.1.jar)
>I hadn't seen that ticket, but the version we used is from
>, which is also licensed under Apache 2.0, so
>it should be good to go.
>> In general, the notice file in the distribution mention couple of
>> other licenses (e.g CPL 1.0, Java EE Servlet specification, BSD, etc)
>> which are not appended on the LICENSE file.See [2] for more detail.
>I had read the best practices when building my NOTICE and LICENSE
>file, and it states "The artifacts and documents to which each
>subsidiary clause applies should be indicated in the document.", so
>what I did at the time was to read each license to see which ones
>required me to provide a copy of their license (BSD did).  CCA and CPL
>didn't specify that I needed to include a copy of their license in my
>distribution.  CCA was possibly ambiguous in this case, but that
>license only applies to the silk icons, which clarify any such
>ambiguity on their home page:
>-- "All I ask is that you include a link back to this page in your
>All that being said, I'm happy to include the CCA and CPL licenses in
>our LICENSE file if that's a deal breaker for 1.1.  And in any case,
>I'll add those licenses to that file for future releases just to make
>sure we cover all bases in the future.
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message