[VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Hi folks,

After much discussion on the JCS developer list, the first official
release of JCS (version 1.3) after leaving the Turbine project is ready
to vote on.

You can find the created artifacts here:
site: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/
jars: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/jar/
dist: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/dist/

Now, shall we release JCS as it is published there?

[ ] +1 Yes, JCS 1.3 should be released
[ ] 0 I do not care
[ ] -1 No (give reasons)

Voting is subject to the rules described in
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/management.html

The deadline is Sat, June 1 2007, 12:00 CET

Note that the Jakarta PMC has the final word on whether the release is
published
or not.

Bye, Thomas

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Now, shall we release JCS as it is published there?
>
> [X] +1 Yes, JCS 1.3 should be released
> [ ] 0 I do not care
> [ ] -1 No (give reasons)


Bye, Thomas.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Sorry, but: -1

There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj

No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not find it in SVN.

Sourcefiles:
There should probably be AL2.0 headers in the .aj files (apart from Trace.aj)

-0 Other problems:

Website:
The Changes report refers to CVS - this should really be SVN
The JCoverage report should really open in a new window, as is done
for Javadocs etc.
The Checkstyle report is in German, ideally it should be in English.
Project Team: both tv and jvanzyl are committers

Sebb AT AO
On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> After much discussion on the JCS developer list, the first official
> release of JCS (version 1.3) after leaving the Turbine project is ready
> to vote on.
>
> You can find the created artifacts here:
> site: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/
> jars: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/jar/
> dist: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/dist/
>
> Now, shall we release JCS as it is published there?
>
> [ ] +1 Yes, JCS 1.3 should be released
> [ ] 0 I do not care
> [ ] -1 No (give reasons)
>
> Voting is subject to the rules described in
> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/management.html
>
> The deadline is Sat, June 1 2007, 12:00 CET
>
> Note that the Jakarta PMC has the final word on whether the release is
> published
> or not.
>
> Bye, Thomas
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

sebb wrote:
> Sorry, but: -1
>
> There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
> The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
> jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
>
> No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not find it in SVN.
>
> Sourcefiles:
> There should probably be AL2.0 headers in the .aj files (apart from
> Trace.aj)

One should not do those things in a hurry. Sorry for this. I will
rebuild the stuff and upload it again.

>
> -0 Other problems:
>
> Website:
> The Changes report refers to CVS - this should really be SVN
Changed.

> The JCoverage report should really open in a new window, as is done
> for Javadocs etc.
This is standard Maven stuff. How would you change that?

> The Checkstyle report is in German, ideally it should be in English.
Fixed.

> Project Team: both tv and jvanzyl are committers
Actually my contributions are very small, so I'm fine with the
contributor status.

Bye, Thomas.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > Sorry, but: -1
> >
> > There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
> > The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
> > jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
> >
> > No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not find it in SVN.
> >
> > Sourcefiles:
> > There should probably be AL2.0 headers in the .aj files (apart from
> > Trace.aj)
>
> One should not do those things in a hurry. Sorry for this. I will
> rebuild the stuff and upload it again.
>
> >
> > -0 Other problems:
> >
> > Website:
> > The Changes report refers to CVS - this should really be SVN
> Changed.
>
> > The JCoverage report should really open in a new window, as is done
> > for Javadocs etc.
> This is standard Maven stuff. How would you change that?

Sorry, no idea.

> > The Checkstyle report is in German, ideally it should be in English.
> Fixed.
>
> > Project Team: both tv and jvanzyl are committers
> Actually my contributions are very small, so I'm fine with the
> contributor status.

But you _are_ still a committer...

Also what about jvanzyl?

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

sebb wrote:
> On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > Project Team: both tv and jvanzyl are committers
>> Actually my contributions are very small, so I'm fine with the
>> contributor status.
>
> But you _are_ still a committer...
Surely it is up to Thomas to decide how he wants to be listed?
> Also what about jvanzyl?
So as a committer Jason is welcome to make this change. I don't see
this as the responsibility of the release manager.

Scott

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

sebb wrote:
> But you _are_ still a committer...

Yes, but then, everybody else in Jakarta is also potentially a committer
for JCS and we would not want to list them all.


By, Thomas.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 26/05/07, Scott Eade wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> >> sebb wrote:
> >> > Project Team: both tv and jvanzyl are committers
> >> Actually my contributions are very small, so I'm fine with the
> >> contributor status.
> >
> > But you _are_ still a committer...
> Surely it is up to Thomas to decide how he wants to be listed?
> > Also what about jvanzyl?
> So as a committer Jason is welcome to make this change. I don't see
> this as the responsibility of the release manager.
>

OK, fine.

The page does not entirely agree with the SVN history; it was not
clear if that was deliberate or accidental.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

sebb wrote:
> Sorry, but: -1
>
> There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
> The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
> jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
>
> No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not find it in SVN.
>
> Sourcefiles:
> There should probably be AL2.0 headers in the .aj files (apart from
> Trace.aj)
>
> -0 Other problems:
>
> Website:
> The Changes report refers to CVS - this should really be SVN
> The JCoverage report should really open in a new window, as is done
> for Javadocs etc.
> The Checkstyle report is in German, ideally it should be in English.

All complaints have been fixed. The new versions are online. I beg for
pardon again. I uploaded a copy of the KEYS file to both, the jar and
the dist directory for your convenience.

I'm not sure how to handle the Xerox copyright stuff. I included the
whole text inside the NOTICE file for now. Don't know if that is
appropriate.

Would you please be so kind as to review again and vote again.

Bye, Thomas.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > Sorry, but: -1
> >
> > There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
> > The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
> > jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
> >
> > No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not find it in SVN.
> >
> > Sourcefiles:
> > There should probably be AL2.0 headers in the .aj files (apart from
> > Trace.aj)
> >
> > -0 Other problems:
> >
> > Website:
> > The Changes report refers to CVS - this should really be SVN
> > The JCoverage report should really open in a new window, as is done
> > for Javadocs etc.
> > The Checkstyle report is in German, ideally it should be in English.
>
> All complaints have been fixed. The new versions are online. I beg for
> pardon again. I uploaded a copy of the KEYS file to both, the jar and
> the dist directory for your convenience.
>
> I'm not sure how to handle the Xerox copyright stuff. I included the
> whole text inside the NOTICE file for now. Don't know if that is
> appropriate.

I don't think so. The NOTICE is not supposed to contain the license.


See:

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/

for an example.

> Would you please be so kind as to review again and vote again.
>
> Bye, Thomas.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

sebb wrote:
> I don't think so. The NOTICE is not supposed to contain the license.

It doesn't. It contains what I understand as "license header" of that
one Xerox file and the associated copyright notice.

Bye, Thomas.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

All I have is the minor nit that a default target is missing and an
empty aspectSourceDirectory which prevents using maven 1.1 for building.

+1 for the release! Thanks to all who participated!

Best regards
Henning

Thomas Vandahl schrieb:
> Hi folks,
>
> After much discussion on the JCS developer list, the first official
> release of JCS (version 1.3) after leaving the Turbine project is ready
> to vote on.
>
> You can find the created artifacts here:
> site: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/
> jars: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/jar/
> dist: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/dist/
>
> Now, shall we release JCS as it is published there?
>
> [ ] +1 Yes, JCS 1.3 should be released
> [ ] 0 I do not care
> [ ] -1 No (give reasons)
>
> Voting is subject to the rules described in
> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/management.html
>
> The deadline is Sat, June 1 2007, 12:00 CET
>
> Note that the Jakarta PMC has the final word on whether the release is
> published
> or not.
>
> Bye, Thomas
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>

--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine

"Save the cheerleader. Save the world."

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 27/05/07, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > I don't think so. The NOTICE is not supposed to contain the license.
>
> It doesn't. It contains what I understand as "license header" of that
> one Xerox file and the associated copyright notice.
>

Sorry to keep going on about this, but I think it is important.

At the moment the Xerox license header makes it look as though the
software is being released under a Xerox license.

That is confusing.

If you don't want to add the Xerox header to LICENSE.txt, it can be
put in a separate file which is referenced from NOTICE.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
LICENSE.txt.

Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
got licensed to us is in NOTICE.

Thomas did the right thing.

Best regards
Henning


sebb schrieb:
> On 27/05/07, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > I don't think so. The NOTICE is not supposed to contain the license.
>>
>> It doesn't. It contains what I understand as "license header" of that
>> one Xerox file and the associated copyright notice.
>>
>
> Sorry to keep going on about this, but I think it is important.
>
> At the moment the Xerox license header makes it look as though the
> software is being released under a Xerox license.
>
> That is confusing.
>
> If you don't want to add the Xerox header to LICENSE.txt, it can be
> put in a separate file which is referenced from NOTICE.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>

--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine

"Save the cheerleader. Save the world."

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 27/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
> LICENSE.txt.
>
> Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
> got licensed to us is in NOTICE.

Are you sure?

That does not seem to agree with the sample NOTICE file:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt

Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and
LICENSE files:

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/

As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions.
The LICENSE file is for licenses.
These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced
from the main LICENSE file.

S///

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 5/27/07, sebb wrote:
> On 27/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
> > LICENSE.txt.
> >
> > Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
> > got licensed to us is in NOTICE.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> That does not seem to agree with the sample NOTICE file:
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
>
> Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and
> LICENSE files:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/
>
> As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions.
> The LICENSE file is for licenses.
> These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced
> from the main LICENSE file.

That's how I understand it too.

Hen

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Well, I understand it differently and Thomas (probably looking at other
projects) did this too:

- LICENSE.txt contains the terms under which the software is licensed.
This is Apache License 2.0

- NOTICE contains attributions to included code and the licenses that
it is included under. Some projects choose to reference "foo.LICENSE"
files for "foo". Some choose to put the appropriate licensess into
the NOTICE file. Yet others put these (third party) licenses into the
LICENSE file.

All of the above are ok IMHO. I personally have a preference for the
first variant. httpd uses the second. I think FOP uses the third.

Best regards
Henning

On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:24 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 5/27/07, sebb wrote:
> > On 27/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > > The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
> > > LICENSE.txt.
> > >
> > > Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
> > > got licensed to us is in NOTICE.
> >
> > Are you sure?
> >
> > That does not seem to agree with the sample NOTICE file:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
> >
> > Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and
> > LICENSE files:
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/
> >
> > As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions.
> > The LICENSE file is for licenses.
> > These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced
> > from the main LICENSE file.
>
> That's how I understand it too.
>
> Hen
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux, |gls
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc
|m k
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Full license text should go in LICENSE and attributions and notices in NOTICE..

Mvgr,
Martin

Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Well, I understand it differently and Thomas (probably looking at other
> projects) did this too:
>
> - LICENSE.txt contains the terms under which the software is licensed.
> This is Apache License 2.0
>
> - NOTICE contains attributions to included code and the licenses that
> it is included under. Some projects choose to reference "foo.LICENSE"
> files for "foo". Some choose to put the appropriate licensess into
> the NOTICE file. Yet others put these (third party) licenses into the
> LICENSE file.
>
> All of the above are ok IMHO. I personally have a preference for the
> first variant. httpd uses the second. I think FOP uses the third.
>
> Best regards
> Henning
>
> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:24 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On 5/27/07, sebb wrote:
>>> On 27/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>>>> The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
>>>> LICENSE.txt.
>>>>
>>>> Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
>>>> got licensed to us is in NOTICE.
>>> Are you sure?
>>>
>>> That does not seem to agree with the sample NOTICE file:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
>>>
>>> Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and
>>> LICENSE files:
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/
>>>
>>> As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions.
>>> The LICENSE file is for licenses.
>>> These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced
>>> from the main LICENSE file.
>> That's how I understand it too.
>>
>> Hen

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Hi,

uhm, this is as ambiguous as before. Do you consider third-party license
a notice (the foo library is distributed under the foo license as shown
here) or a license in its own right and you would put in into LICENSE.

According to http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new, the LICENSE
file is a copy of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt

And is that *really* important?

Best regards
Henning


Martin van den Bemt schrieb:
> Full license text should go in LICENSE and attributions and notices in NOTICE..
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>> Well, I understand it differently and Thomas (probably looking at other
>> projects) did this too:
>>
>> - LICENSE.txt contains the terms under which the software is licensed.
>> This is Apache License 2.0
>>
>> - NOTICE contains attributions to included code and the licenses that
>> it is included under. Some projects choose to reference "foo.LICENSE"
>> files for "foo". Some choose to put the appropriate licensess into
>> the NOTICE file. Yet others put these (third party) licenses into the
>> LICENSE file.
>>
>> All of the above are ok IMHO. I personally have a preference for the
>> first variant. httpd uses the second. I think FOP uses the third.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Henning
>>
>> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:24 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> On 5/27/07, sebb wrote:
>>>> On 27/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>>>>> The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
>>>>> LICENSE.txt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
>>>>> got licensed to us is in NOTICE.
>>>> Are you sure?
>>>>
>>>> That does not seem to agree with the sample NOTICE file:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
>>>>
>>>> Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and
>>>> LICENSE files:
>>>>
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions.
>>>> The LICENSE file is for licenses.
>>>> These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced
>>>> from the main LICENSE file.
>>> That's how I understand it too.
>>>
>>> Hen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>

--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine

"Save the cheerleader. Save the world."

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 29/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> uhm, this is as ambiguous as before. Do you consider third-party license
> a notice (the foo library is distributed under the foo license as shown
> here) or a license in its own right and you would put in into LICENSE.
>
> According to http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new, the LICENSE
> file is a copy of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
>
> And is that *really* important?

I find the current NOTICE rather misleading - it looks as though the
whole of JCS is licensed under a Xerox licence.

I think it's therefore important to fix this.

> Best regards
> Henning
>
>
> Martin van den Bemt schrieb:
> > Full license text should go in LICENSE and attributions and notices in NOTICE..
> >
> > Mvgr,
> > Martin
> >
> > Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >> Well, I understand it differently and Thomas (probably looking at other
> >> projects) did this too:
> >>
> >> - LICENSE.txt contains the terms under which the software is licensed.
> >> This is Apache License 2.0
> >>
> >> - NOTICE contains attributions to included code and the licenses that
> >> it is included under. Some projects choose to reference "foo.LICENSE"
> >> files for "foo". Some choose to put the appropriate licensess into
> >> the NOTICE file. Yet others put these (third party) licenses into the
> >> LICENSE file.
> >>
> >> All of the above are ok IMHO. I personally have a preference for the
> >> first variant. httpd uses the second. I think FOP uses the third.
> >>
> >> Best regards
> >> Henning
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:24 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
> >>> On 5/27/07, sebb wrote:
> >>>> On 27/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >>>>> The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
> >>>>> LICENSE.txt.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
> >>>>> got licensed to us is in NOTICE.
> >>>> Are you sure?
> >>>>
> >>>> That does not seem to agree with the sample NOTICE file:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and
> >>>> LICENSE files:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/
> >>>>
> >>>> As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions.
> >>>> The LICENSE file is for licenses.
> >>>> These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced
> >>>> from the main LICENSE file.
> >>> That's how I understand it too.
> >>>
> >>> Hen
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
> --
> Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux
> 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
> Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine
>
> "Save the cheerleader. Save the world."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

sebb wrote:
> I find the current NOTICE rather misleading - it looks as though the
> whole of JCS is licensed under a Xerox licence.
>
> I think it's therefore important to fix this.

From re-reading the NOTICE file, I agree with you. My proposal to solve
this is the following:

---8<---
Apache Jakarta JCS
Copyright 2001-2007 The Apache Software Foundation.
Portions Copyright (c) Xerox Corporation 1998-2001.

This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).

This product includes software developed at Xerox Corporation which has
been published under the following license:
---
Copyright (c) Xerox Corporation 1998-2001. All rights reserved.

Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works
based upon this software are permitted. Any distribution of this
software or derivative works must comply with all applicable United
States export control laws.

This software is made available AS IS, and Xerox Corporation makes no
warranty about the software, its performance or its conformity to any
specification.
---

---8<---

Could we agree on this version?

Bye, Thomas.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 30/05/07, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > I find the current NOTICE rather misleading - it looks as though the
> > whole of JCS is licensed under a Xerox licence.
> >
> > I think it's therefore important to fix this.
>
> From re-reading the NOTICE file, I agree with you. My proposal to solve
> this is the following:
>
> ---8<---
> Apache Jakarta JCS
> Copyright 2001-2007 The Apache Software Foundation.
> Portions Copyright (c) Xerox Corporation 1998-2001.
>
> This product includes software developed at
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> This product includes software developed at Xerox Corporation which has
> been published under the following license:
> ---
> Copyright (c) Xerox Corporation 1998-2001. All rights reserved.
>
> Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works
> based upon this software are permitted. Any distribution of this
> software or derivative works must comply with all applicable United
> States export control laws.
>
> This software is made available AS IS, and Xerox Corporation makes no
> warranty about the software, its performance or its conformity to any
> specification.
> ---
>
> ---8<---
>
> Could we agree on this version?
>

The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.

I suggest you remove the Xerox license header from it, and add it to
the LICENSE file, with the appropriate introduction.

Sorry to keep going on about this, but there's only one other file to edit.

> Bye, Thomas.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

sebb wrote:
> The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
I beg to differ, but I will not go into this again.

> I suggest you remove the Xerox license header from it, and add it to
> the LICENSE file, with the appropriate introduction.
The LICENSE.txt file is supposed to contain the ASL 2.0 and nothing
else. I created another file LICENSE.xerox and refer to it from the
NOTICE file.

> Sorry to keep going on about this, but there's only one other file to edit.
Actually, it's more than that. But so be it. I will update the files on
my site and kindly ask for a re-vote.

Bye, Thomas.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 30/05/07, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
> I beg to differ, but I will not go into this again.
>
> > I suggest you remove the Xerox license header from it, and add it to
> > the LICENSE file, with the appropriate introduction.
> The LICENSE.txt file is supposed to contain the ASL 2.0 and nothing
> else.

I don't think that is correct.
The reference to copying the AL 2.0 file to the LICENSE file in

http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new

relates to creating the initial LICENSE file - it does not say that
the LICENSE file cannot contain anything else.

> I created another file LICENSE.xerox and refer to it from the
> NOTICE file.

It needs either to be referenced in or actually in the LICENSE file.

> > Sorry to keep going on about this, but there's only one other file to edit.
> Actually, it's more than that.

Not necessarily.

It's your choice as to whether to append the Xerox license to the
LICENSE file or put it in a separate file and edit LICENSE to refer to
it.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 19:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
> The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.

What makes you think so? I am still a bit stumped that you so strongly
insist on this. Is there any reference (besides the cited httpd project)
to that?

Best regards
Henning

--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux, |gls
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc
|m k
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 5/30/07, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 19:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
> > The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
>
> What makes you think so? I am still a bit stumped that you so strongly
> insist on this. Is there any reference (besides the cited httpd project)
> to that?

For a long time I thought LICENSE was for the license only and
everything else went in NOTICE. Discussions with Cliff, and I'm pretty
sure watching other discussions on legal-discuss, made it clear that
license-things go in LICENSE, and copyright/ip things go in NOTICE.

Look at the two places in http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
where it mentions LICENSE, both imply that the LICENSE file is the
only place to find licensing terms.

Hen

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Yep, I know this.

Status

Version: 0.52

Effective Date. N/A (proposed)

==> non binding.

If it were in effect, then yes, the paragraph

--- cut ---

* Reciprocity

Required by some Components: Some included third-party works are
licensed under terms that require distribution of derivative works
to be made available under the same license as the original work.
See the Apache product's LICENSE file to find the applicable
third-party licenses.

--- cut ---

would make it clear.

But it is no official Apache policy. And in lieu of policy, none of us
can say that the way Thomas compiled LICENSE and NOTICE is wrong.
Because there is no official policy.

*Sigh*, it seems that I finally have to subscribe to legal-discuss. :-(


Best regards
Henning



On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 12:35 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 5/30/07, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 19:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
> > > The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
> >
> > What makes you think so? I am still a bit stumped that you so strongly
> > insist on this. Is there any reference (besides the cited httpd project)
> > to that?
>
> For a long time I thought LICENSE was for the license only and
> everything else went in NOTICE. Discussions with Cliff, and I'm pretty
> sure watching other discussions on legal-discuss, made it clear that
> license-things go in LICENSE, and copyright/ip things go in NOTICE.
>
> Look at the two places in http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
> where it mentions LICENSE, both imply that the LICENSE file is the
> only place to find licensing terms.
>
> Hen
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux, |gls
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc
|m k
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 30/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Yep, I know this.
>
> Status
>
> Version: 0.52
>
> Effective Date. N/A (proposed)
>
> ==> non binding.

However:

http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html

says much the same, and seems to be policy.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Actually, it's more than that. But so be it. I will update the files on
> my site and kindly ask for a re-vote.

Done. I chose the separate LICENSE file. The maven2-POM is also part of
the distribution.

Bye, Thomas.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Thomas Vandahl wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's more than that. But so be it. I will update the files on
>> my site and kindly ask for a re-vote.
>>
>
> Done. I chose the separate LICENSE file. The maven2-POM is also part of
> the distribution.
>
The maven2 pom is what I was holding out for and I believe the license
issue has been dealt with correctly. So...

+1 for the release from me.

Scott

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Can you BTW also remove the empty from the
Maven 1 POM. This is what stops maven 1.1 beta 3 from building the
distribution.

Good work, folks. +1

Best regards
Henning


Scott Eade schrieb:
> Thomas Vandahl wrote:
>> Thomas Vandahl wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, it's more than that. But so be it. I will update the files on
>>> my site and kindly ask for a re-vote.
>>>
>>
>> Done. I chose the separate LICENSE file. The maven2-POM is also part of
>> the distribution.
>>
> The maven2 pom is what I was holding out for and I believe the license
> issue has been dealt with correctly. So...
>
> +1 for the release from me.
>
> Scott
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>

--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine

"Save the cheerleader. Save the world."

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

+1

---rony

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Hi Sebastian,

sebb wrote:
> However:
>
> http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>
> says much the same, and seems to be policy.

As you can see from the SVN tag JCS_1_3 and the artifacts at my site,
your concerns have been addressed and the license files have been fixed.

I would like to ask you to be so kind as to re-vote on the subject,
based on the new status.

Regards, Thomas.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

If you vote again your vote is binding too :)

Mvgr,
Martin

Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> sebb wrote:
>> However:
>>
>> http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>>
>> says much the same, and seems to be policy.
>
> As you can see from the SVN tag JCS_1_3 and the artifacts at my site,
> your concerns have been addressed and the license files have been fixed.
>
> I would like to ask you to be so kind as to re-vote on the subject,
> based on the new status.
>
> Regards, Thomas.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 04/06/07, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,

Hi

> sebb wrote:
> > However:
> >
> > http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> >
> > says much the same, and seems to be policy.
>
> As you can see from the SVN tag JCS_1_3 and the artifacts at my site,
> your concerns have been addressed and the license files have been fixed.
>
> I would like to ask you to be so kind as to re-vote on the subject,
> based on the new status.
>

Sorry for the delay in responding.

The NOTICE file is much clearer, and the Xerox license is identified,
so I am withdrawing my -1.

When the rules have been clarified, the next release can implement any
changes if necessary.

Sebastian

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> If you vote again your vote is binding too :)

Next time. Thanks again for voting me in.

Bye, Thomas.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

sebb wrote:
> Sorry for the delay in responding.
>
> The NOTICE file is much clearer, and the Xerox license is identified,
> so I am withdrawing my -1.
>
> When the rules have been clarified, the next release can implement any
> changes if necessary.
>
> Sebastian

Thanks, I will clarify the result now, based on your +1 I suppose?

Bye, Thomas.

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 04/06/07, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > Sorry for the delay in responding.
> >
> > The NOTICE file is much clearer, and the Xerox license is identified,
> > so I am withdrawing my -1.
> >
> > When the rules have been clarified, the next release can implement any
> > changes if necessary.
> >
> > Sebastian
>
> Thanks, I will clarify the result now, based on your +1 I suppose?

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

I have withdrawn the -1.
That does not mean I am now totally in favour.

I'm not convinced that the files are quite right yet, so I am now abstaining.

> Bye, Thomas.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

Could you create an example on how you would consider the structure and
content as "acceptable" so that we can understand what you want to have?

Thanks
Henning


sebb schrieb:
> On 04/06/07, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > Sorry for the delay in responding.
>> >
>> > The NOTICE file is much clearer, and the Xerox license is identified,
>> > so I am withdrawing my -1.
>> >
>> > When the rules have been clarified, the next release can implement any
>> > changes if necessary.
>> >
>> > Sebastian
>>
>> Thanks, I will clarify the result now, based on your +1 I suppose?
>
> Sorry, I should have been clearer.
>
> I have withdrawn the -1.
> That does not mean I am now totally in favour.
>
> I'm not convinced that the files are quite right yet, so I am now
> abstaining.
>
>> Bye, Thomas.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>

--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine

"Save the cheerleader. Save the world."

Re: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3

On 05/06/07, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Could you create an example on how you would consider the structure and
> content as "acceptable" so that we can understand what you want to have?
>
> Thanks
> Henning

I thought I already had done so:

On 27/05/07, sebb wrote:
> On 27/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
> > LICENSE.txt.
> >
> > Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
> > got licensed to us is in NOTICE.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> That does not seem to agree with the sample NOTICE file:
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
>
> Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and
> LICENSE files:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/
>
> As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions.
> The LICENSE file is for licenses.
> These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced
> from the main LICENSE file.
>

S///