Hi John, Could you revise your vote as the glog issue is resolved? Thanks.
Best, Wei On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:25 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > Fair enough. > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:48 PM Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > > > https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/COPYING > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Niclas, > > > > > > So I'll point out a couple of things. > > > > > > 1. -1's on releases aren't vetos, so if someone else (e.g. you) voted a > > +1 > > > my -1 would be moot. > > > > > > 2. I mentioned in my response that the main issue is that I can't find > a > > > listed license for glog and I was choosing GPL because I found a source > > > file with a GPL header. If the first file I looked at was another > > license, > > > I would have assumed that license. It has nothing to do with build > > chain. > > > If you have a link that can show that glog is BSD licensed, that would > > > settle this. Note that this issue [1] exists. > > > > > > John > > > > > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog/issues/118 > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:04 AM Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Sure, but in this case it is; > > > > 1. Singa depends on Glog > > > > 2. Glog is BSD licensed > > > > 3. Glog use a build tool chain that is GPL'd and includes a build > > > script > > > > to compensate for missing toolchain tools. > > > > 4. Singa doesn't use Glog's build toolchain > > > > > > > > Your (John) argument is that Glog is incorrectly licensed and should > > have > > > > been GPL'd. I think that reasoning is incorrect, and that Glog is > > > licensed > > > > correctly and hence it is not relevant whether it is optional or not > > for > > > > Singa. > > > > > > > > Given that we have both belt and suspenders for this, I think the -1 > > can > > > be > > > > withdrawn regarding the Glog dependency. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Niclas > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John D. Ament < > johndam...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We actually just had a discussion recently on legal-discuss on this > > > type > > > > of > > > > > topic. Specifically, Cat-X and optional vs required dependencies. > > > Henri > > > > > and I settled on the wording you'll find at [1] as the final > result. > > > > > Basically, you can rely on Cat-X but only for optional features. > > > > > > > > > > We can probably follow up with legal on whether this does fall into > > the > > > > GPL > > > > > bucket though. > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think that ends up being a build time dependency in GLOG, i.e. > > the > > > > > > equivalent of Systems Requirement, and not in itself viral to the > > ASF > > > > > > software. I assume that Google is much more worried about this > and > > > may > > > > > even > > > > > > have checked with their Legal team... > > > > > > > > > > > > Want to check with legal-discuss@ ? Is my memory failing me, or > > > hasn't > > > > > FSF > > > > > > stated that the build output is not bound by GPL of the build > > > > toolchain? > > > > > > (otherwise they can't release their own LGPL stuff) > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Niclas > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, John D. Ament < > > > johndam...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -1 at least I think there's an issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While the source code all looks good, the resulting binary is > not > > > > > valid. > > > > > > > There's no how to build doc, so I looked at your .travis.yml. > It > > > > > > confirmed > > > > > > > what I suspected for make, but then I started looking at your > > > > required > > > > > > > packages. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You require glog [1], which I can't find a license for. > However, > > > > glog > > > > > > > includes [2] which is GPL, which makes glog GPL and as a > result, > > > your > > > > > > code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://github.com/google/glog > > > > > > > [2]: https://github.com/google/glog/blob/master/missing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:24 PM Wang Wei <wang...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to > > > release > > > > > > > Apache > > > > > > > > SINGA 1.1.0 (incubating). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote thread is at: > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/% > > > > > > > > 3CCAJz0iLvAaEd5AgCqaWFD1M4-D_3EBh%3DUHbeZu-MRn%3DcKuQiX-Q%4 > > > > > > > 0mail.gmail.com > > > > > > > > %3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the result is at: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201701.mbox/% > > > > > > > 3cCAJz0iLspBOrsCSTaWuraOWwETiDB4cn14ak5SgdYB8umXOJ3Kw@mail. > > > gmail.com > > > > > %3e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ask the IPMC to vote on this release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The artifacts to be voted on are located here: > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1. > 0/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The hashes of the artifacts are as follows: > > > > > > > > MD5: 08 CA 31 10 4E 79 02 16 A1 D7 3F 20 2D 60 21 BB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release artifacts are signed with the following key: > > > > > > > > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the signature file is: > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/1.1.0 > > > > > > > > /apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0-RC1.tar.gz.asc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Github tag is at: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-singa/releases/tag/ > > > v1.1.0-rc1 > > > > > > > > commit ID is: 59ca44a7ce38ce4f965511c805cda074d0b8e360 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To check the license, you can use the Apache Rat tool as > > follows: > > > > > > > > 1. download & decompress apache rat from > > > > > > http://creadur.apache.org/rat/ > > > > > > > > download_rat.cgi > > > > > > > > 2. run the following command under singa folder: > > > > > > > > java -jar /PATH/TO/RAT/apache-rat-0.11.jar -E > rat-excludes > > > -d . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rat_check > > > > > > > > 3. check the results in file named "rat_check" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please check and vote on releasing this package. The vote is > > open > > > > for > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 > > > votes > > > > > are > > > > > > > > cast. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SINGA 1.0.0-incubating > > > > > > > > [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the > > > > release > > > > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Wei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > > > > > http://polygene.apache.org <http://zest.apache.org> - New Energy > > for > > > > > Java > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > > > http://polygene.apache.org <http://zest.apache.org> - New Energy for > > > Java > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > http://polygene.apache.org <http://zest.apache.org> - New Energy for > Java > > >
