Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin (practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm not an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to projects I'm familiar with like Solr and Mahout, they are vastly different. I

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

I had a look, since I was just dealing with NOTICE for another project. The key is whether copies of the third-party libraries are distributed. In the case of Drill, yes there are loads of 3rd party jars distributed in jars/; they are not just Maven deps referenced in pom.xml. I am sure this will

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin > (practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm > not an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to projects > I'm famili

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Is it correct, then, to say that if Drill does not bundle any GPL licensed libraries, we do not need any additional info in the NOTICE? On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Grant Ingersoll > wrote: > > Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, bu

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Calcite 0.9.1 (incubating)

OK, let me clarify as sebb has asked so that the vote can proceed. The git commit to be voted upon: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-optiq/commit/6801257324d7515f91c61877a0edd0863c0433f5 Its hash is 6801257324d7515f91c61877a0edd0863c0433f5. The artifacts to be voted on are locate

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Calcite 0.9.1 (incubating)

On 10 October 2014 18:59, Julian Hyde wrote: > OK, let me clarify as sebb has asked so that the vote can proceed. Thanks very much, the new text is very good. > The git commit to be voted upon: > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-optiq/commit/6801257324d7515f91c61877a0edd0863c0433

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

The standard practice has been drifting in incubator-land. When I brought this up previously, I was told a few things, 1) the notices required by BSD like licenses apparently should appear in the LICENSE file. 2) notices in the source distribution only need to include things that are included in

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Sean, Are you talking about the src distribution after doing the build? Before doing the build or after [mvn clean], there are no jars in the distribution. Videlicet: *ted:apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating-src$ mvn -q cleanted:apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating-src$ find . -name '*.jar'ted:apache-d

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

No I just went straight for the binary distribution: http://people.apache.org/~smp/apache-drill-0.6.0.rc0/apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating.tar.gz This contains the third-party jar files in jars/. I assume http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html is still the law of the land so to speak and in

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > The standard practice has been drifting in incubator-land. There's hardly any daylight between what Roy was recommending 8 years ago and what we recommend today. (NOTICE should be minimal, only bundled bits get documented in LICENSE and NOTIC

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Actually, the licensing howto says things like this: In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the source tree and a short note summarizing its licensing: This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a "3-clause BSD" license. For