2008/9/4 Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Definitely a big step in the right direction, however..
>
> The ruby, c++, and python packages don't have the disclaimer in them.
>
> The Java licenses file mentions the EPL, but I didn't see any eclipse licensed
> jars and stuff. I could have mis
Definitely a big step in the right direction, however..
The ruby, c++, and python packages don't have the disclaimer in them.
The Java licenses file mentions the EPL, but I didn't see any eclipse licensed
jars and stuff. I could have missed it though. Not a big deal though.
Dan
O
+1 from me.
--Rajith
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I checked the signature and reviewed the license, notice, and disclaimer
> files in the release, and everything looked good.
>
> +1
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Sep 2, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Aidan Skinner wrote:
>
I checked the signature and reviewed the license, notice, and
disclaimer files in the release, and everything looked good.
+1
Craig
On Sep 2, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Aidan Skinner wrote:
There were some problems with the NOTICE and LICENSE files in RC3 (is
there a good guide to this anywhere? hav
Aidan Skinner wrote:
There were some problems with the NOTICE and LICENSE files in RC3 (is
there a good guide to this anywhere? having all the individual
licenses in LICENSE seems odd to me...) so I've rolled RC4[1] and
would like to restart the vote to release Apache Qpid M3.
I started the v
There were some problems with the NOTICE and LICENSE files in RC3 (is
there a good guide to this anywhere? having all the individual
licenses in LICENSE seems odd to me...) so I've rolled RC4[1] and
would like to restart the vote to release Apache Qpid M3.
I started the vote on qpid-dev at 2008-0
