Note distributing OpenSSL mean you need to update the Trafodion entry on http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/
to also include your dist folder. On 1 Jun 2016 6:54 p.m., "Steve Varnau" <steve.var...@esgyn.com> wrote: > Justin, > > Thanks for clarifying the issues here. I will write JIRAs to fix the two > minor issues in next release (clarify the rescinded BSD-4 clause and remove > the GPL part of the dual license). > > Looking at the openssl issue, I want to figure out why we are statically > linking the libraries. If there is a key reason it needs to be static > rather than dynamically linked, then I'll want to go to legal-discuss and > ask whether we can distribute it, given license changes in the works. > > If we can change the build to change to dynamic linking and not include > openssl in the binaries, then perhaps the expedient thing is to go ahead > with this release, minus the client binary. And re-package it for next > release. > > Thanks! > > --Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 8:15 PM > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating) > > > > Hi, > > > > +1 (binding) to release source package, but -1 for the client connivence > > binary > > until the 4 clause BSD licensing issue is resolved. > > > > For the source released I checked: > > - all files have incubating > > - signatures check out > > - disclaimer exists > > - LICENSE and NOTICE good > > - No unexpected binary in source > > - All ASF licensed file have ASF headers > > > > The source LICENSE has a minor issue. It mentions the 4 clause BSD > license > > which is not compatible with the Apache license (only the 2 and 3 clause > > BSD > > licenses are) [1][2]. In this case the extra clause has been recinded [3] > > you > > might want to reword/state that in the license. > > > > But that does mean there is an issue with the client binary release as > > that > > includes OpenSSL which lists a 6 clause BSD style license (similar to a 4 > > clause > > BSD license) and SSLeay under a 4 clause BSD license. You may need to > > clarify > > this on legal discuss. It may be that their intent to move to an Apache > > licence > > may mean you can hold off on doing anything but I’m not 100% sure. [4][5] > > > > I would also remove the GPL license text from the server’s LICENSE file > to > > make > > it clear which license it’s included under. If something is dual licensed > > you > > select which licence you want to use. > > > > Thanks, > > Justin > > > > 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a > > 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-185 > > 3. https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause > > 4. https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2015/08/01/cla/ > > 5. https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/License > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
