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 <a...@apache.org> 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: https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/NOTICE.txt > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/NOTICE.txt&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1522643463206000&usg=AFQjCNGI8Ip-PaJG9FI1khGSq5ErPtu6eQ> > > Apache HBase: https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/NOTICE.txt > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/NOTICE.txt&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1522643463206000&usg=AFQjCNGuWUiULf55KJuDhruPujU8zDiLhg> > > Apache Ambari: https://github.com/apache/ambari/blob/trunk/ > ambari-web/app/assets/licenses/NOTICE.txt > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://github.com/apache/ambari/blob/trunk/ambari-web/app/assets/licenses/NOTICE.txt&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1522643463206000&usg=AFQjCNHhiS9lcjtDZJi0LCRVKBBkiFslmw> > > Apache Spark: https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1522643463206000&usg=AFQjCNEyNwgI9q--GLEqJJXMLE9gPxD9VQ> > > .. 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 <jus...@classsoftware.com> > 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: 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
