commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maison...@free.fr>
Subject Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Date Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:11:46 GMT
sebb a écrit :
> On 28/07/2009, Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr> wrote:
>> sebb a écrit :
>>
>>> On 25/07/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  >> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/commons-math-2.0-RC1/
>>  >
>>  > Sigs OK, but the MD5 and SHA1 hashes are different from usual:
>>  >
>>  > MD5(commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz)= 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211
>>  >
>>  > This complicates checking them.
>>  >
>>  > The normal format is:
>>  >
>>  > 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211 *commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz
>>  >
>>  > The NOTICE file still shows 2008.
>>  >
>>  > Also, the NOTICE file contains some 3rd party licences - these should
>>  > be in the LICENSE file; NOTICE should be for attributions only.
>>
>>
>> I have looked at other commons components for an example of how to put
>>  all licenses in the LICENSE file. I found none. The only components that
>>  have external attributions in the NOTICE files apart from [math] are the
>>  following ones:
>>
>>  [vfs] states this in the NOTICE file:
>>
>>   As an optional dependency it uses javamail developed by
>>   SUN Microsystems
>>   You can get the library and its source from
>>   http://java.sun.com/products/javamail/
>>   This library uses the CDDL open source license
>>
>>
>>
>>  [codec] states this in the NOTICE file:
>>
>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  src/test/org/apache/commons/codec/language/DoubleMetaphoneTest.java
>>  contains
>>  test data from http://aspell.sourceforge.net/test/batch0.tab.
>>
>>  Copyright (C) 2002 Kevin Atkinson (kevina@gnu.org). Verbatim copying
>>  and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium,
>>  provided this notice is preserved.
>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>  [el] states this in the NOTICE file:
>>
>>  EL-8 patch - Copyright 2004-2007 Jamie Taylor
>>  http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EL-8
>>
>>
>>
>>  [compress] states this in the NOTICE file:
>>
>>  Original BZip2 classes contributed by Keiron Liddle
>>  <keiron@aftexsw.com>, Aftex Software to the Apache Ant project
>>
>>  Original Tar classes from contributors of the Apache Ant project
>>
>>  Original Zip classes from contributors of the Apache Ant project
> 
> The mentions of Apache Ant are not needed.
> 
>>  Original CPIO classes contributed by Markus Kuss and the jRPM project
>>  (jrpm.sourceforge.net)
>>
>>
>>
>>  All these components put only the Apache license in the LICENSE file,
>>  which seemed fair to me. The dependencies these components have fit well
>>  with either no license text or a small one (a link to the license by
>>  name for [vfs], a single short sentence for [codec]). This is not
>>  sufficient for [math] since we have to put the text of BSD type licenses
>>  for several classes, this is the reason why I put these in the NOTICE
>>  file at first.
>>
>>  It seems strange to me to put a single license file with both our
>>  license and these external licenses. Should these really go in the
>>  LICENSE file or could they be put in a separate file (OTHER-LICENSES or
>>  a name like that) or in several separate files, (LICENSE-lmder,
>>  LICENSE-Heirer, LICENSE-lapack ...) ?
>>
> 
> See the sample license file here:
> 
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
> 
> "Here" is the link.

Thanks, sebb, I'll commit it in a few minutes.

Luc


> 
>>  Luc
>>
>>
>>  >
>>  > I think this is a release blocker.
>>  >
>>  > The packaging of the binary archive looks wrong as well - I don't
>>  > think it should contain Javadoc for the test code, nor the Cobertura
>>  > reports (IIRC these have an incompatible license?). Looks like the
>>  > entire site was accidentally included, as the binary archives are
>>  > huge.
>>  >
>>  > Also a release blocker IMO.
>>  >
>>  > The source files use the $Date$ SVN marker, which makes it hard to
>>  > compare the SVN tag with the source archive, as the date is expressed
>>  > in local time. Not a release blocker, but ideally I'd like to see
>>  > these removed at some point.
>>  >
>>  > Code builds and tests OK for me on Java 1.5 using Ant and Maven2.
>>  >
>>  >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  >>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>  >>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>  > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message