Thanks John, and also thanks for taking a very in depth look at even the
details!
And here is my own
+1
as well.
LieGrue,strub
On Tuesday, 20 March 2018, 14:49:56 CET, John D. Ament
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 6:11 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
wrote:
Le 19 mars 2018 20:20, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit :
The check in the build is that there's a NOTICE file available, and if its
there you should use that.
Realistically what I would have done is replaced the NOTICE.vm from
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/xbean/trunk/xbean-asm6-shaded/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/NOTICE.vm?revision=1764037&view=markup&pathrev=1827162
with one that just includes empty strings.
It's not correct to say this JAR includes software developed at the ASF,
nothing in there is developed here.
This is wrong John, check out the content of the jar.
This is why the notice is generated this way and correctly.
You're right; its likely the best we can do in a notice, switching my vote to
+1
John
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:08 AM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, we eventually also like to fix the year "Apache XBean Copyright 2005-2013"
2013.... ;)
So +1 for the release
LieGrue,strub
On Monday, 19 March 2018, 16:02:11 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau
<[email protected]> wrote:
well if that's the direction we take I'm tempted to say that: in both cases we
are perfectly legally fineso we should just move forward the release if that's
the only issue found. Then once passed we should solve it in a dedicated thread.
This means that it is not needed to mention this one anymore in the context of
this vote IMHO.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
2018-03-19 15:29 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>:
well, that's why we had the BSD in there! You see?
And no, the current NOTICE is NOT wrong. The BSD-3clause, the ALv2 etc allow to
create a derivative work which is under another license. And this is why we
have
"Apache XBean Copyright 2005-2013 The Apache Software Foundation"
in the NOTICE file.
But of course, by removing the BSD part from the NOTICE file this is now
totally off.
Note that the original legal ticket was created for a project which only had a
very few BSD classes. In our case the majority or work is BSD. Still the
summary derivative work (our shaded bundle) is ALv2.
So my personal opinion is to revert back to the previous version of the NOTICE!
LieGrue,strub
On Monday, 19 March 2018, 15:11:23 CET, John D. Ament
<[email protected]> wrote:
-1The NOTICE file in the JAR is now worse. It indicates that the code was
developed at the ASF.
IMHO, there should be no NOTICE file in the JAR.
If the NOTICE file includes just
Apache XBean :: ASM 6 shaded (repackaged)Copyright 2005-2018 The Apache
Software Foundation
That should be enough.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:01 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi!
Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
Here is the staging repo: https://repository. apache.org/content/ repositories/
orgapachegeronimo-1053
The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.
apache.org/content/ repositories/ orgapachegeronimo-1053/org/
apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean- 4.7-source-release.zip
sha1 is c17fb38c503b0d0c0798b0fde9cf15 44d19681d0
Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10) and fixing asm NOTICE file.
[+1] ship it
[-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
The VOTE is open for 72h.
Here is my +1.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
