incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Holsman <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Date Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:26:27 GMT
+1 from me.

On Aug 18, 2009, at 2:12 AM, ant elder wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Eric Evans<>  
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
>>>>  Given whats being said in the "Thrift release
>>>>  legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party
>>>>  licenses separate,
>>> I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files  
>>> starting
>>> at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE
>>> file should have pointers to the other license files.
>>>> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>> AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party  
>>> code
>>> included in the propose release.
>> When preparing for the 0.3.0[0] release I spent a great deal of time
>> trying to get all of this right. I looked at list threads for both
>> successful and failed podling release votes, I looked at what top- 
>> level
>> projects were doing, and I read through what documentation I could  
>> find.
>> This wasn't as helpful as I'd have liked because the documents are
>> non-normative and the application is inconsistent, (and occasionally
>> contradictory). So I did the best I could.
>> The conclusion I came to with respect to NOTICE.txt was that it  
>> existed
>> for purposes of attribution, and was specifically in response to  
>> section
>> 4(d) of the Apache License. As a result, the NOTICE.txt in the
>> (approved )0.3.0 artifacts and the proposed 0.4.0, contains two
>> attribution statements, one for the Apache licensed Groovy, and one  
>> for
>> "software developed by The Apache Software Foundation" which should
>> cover everything else that is Apache licensed.
>> The conclusion I came to for LICENSE.txt was that it was for  
>> including
>> the full license text applicable to the project itself.
>> Both of the above conclusions seemed consistent with at least some
>> successful podling releases, and with some ASF top-level projects,  
>> and
>> (to the best of my knowledge), all of the license requirements for  
>> our
>> third-party dependencies are being met.
>> However, I'd be happy to go back and correct any shortcomings and
>> re-roll the artifacts if that will get us the votes we need to make a
>> release. I just wish things were more consistent and that the process
>> required a little less groping around in the dark.
>> [0]
>> msg21853.html
>> --
>> Eric Evans
> Ok, +1 from me to release. Happy to reconsider if anyone can find an
> actual link to some evidence of specific policy that says how this
> release is done is not ok.
>   ...ant

Ian Holsman

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

View raw message