incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Gobblin 0.12.0 release RC2
Date Mon, 02 Apr 2018 14:21:39 GMT
First of all, one cannot "veto" a release, so a -1 vote on a release
is not, really, a blocker. One can still do the release; but it does
indicate a lack of consensus within the (P)PMC that the release
is in a "releasable" state.

> On Apr 1, 2018, at 7:19 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <> wrote:
> 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:
> ambari-web/app/assets/licenses/NOTICE.txt
> <>
> 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?
> Abhishek
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Justin Mclean <>
> wrote:
>> 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:

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

View raw message