incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Abhishek Tiwari <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Gobblin 0.12.0 release RC2
Date Sun, 01 Apr 2018 23:19:45 GMT
Although the vote is over and successful, at this point I think I will just
update the NOTICE file and bring in another RC for vote.

However, I am puzzled that this improvement (not blocker) is attracting -1
votes. I would have expected +1 or 0 with improvement suggestion,
specifically because I see that this is a very common pattern in many if
not most of the major Apache TLP projects.
The two entries in our NOTICE file is for: bootstrap and Glyphicon icons.
And, for exactly the same included bits, here are the NOTICE files for a
few other major TLPs:
Apache Hadoop:

Apache HBase:

Apache Ambari:

Apache Spark:

.. there are many more, but I stopped at these.

So, isn't enforcing improvements on podling not harsh when it does not
attracts -1 or blocks releases for other Apache TLP releases?


On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Justin Mclean <>

> Hi,
> It's hard to come up with a single simple sentence that applies in all
> cases. So when I said "if something is bundled then it's license and
> copyright needs to be in LICENSE not NOTICE.” I’m wrong as it's not going
> to all cover all cases.
> For bundling Apache licensed (v2) bits of software the copyright isn’t in
> the license. If the software has a NOTICE file then that is very likely
> going to effect your NOTICE file - which I think what Sebb was getting at
> and this is certainly the most common situation.
> In general other permissive licenses (like MIT and BSD) include a
> copyright line in the license text and theres’s no need to include anything
> in NOTICE.
> Then we come to required notices which are going to be uncommon. The
> licenses with required notices (ignoring ALv2) that I know of are the BSD
> with advertising clause (Category X), CDDL (list of modifications and how
> to get source) and MPL (info how to get source code) which are both
> Category B. None of these would be bundled in a source release (but may
> affect a binary one). I can’t think of any category A license which has a
> required notices. Does anyone know of one?
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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