uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Eckart de Castilho <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA-AS 2.8.1 RC3
Date Tue, 26 Apr 2016 21:13:37 GMT
I agree with Marshall. The NOTICE/LICENSE files should reflect what
is actually inside a JAR/ZIP and non-applicable parts should - if feasible -
be removed.

That said, the LICENSE/NOTICE files e.g. from the Spring distribution are also
usually shooting beyond the goal and make references to third-party code that
may or may not be in a particular artifact... and all artifacts contain the
same notices/licenses.

In the case of Spring, I find it not particularly practicable to figure out
what is relevant and what not.

But here, specific parts seem to be clearly assignable to specific non-packaged JARs,
so it appears to be practicable to be more accurate.

-- Richard

> On 26.04.2016, at 23:03, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
> 
> Here's a summary (please correct if wrong):
> 
> There are two "optional" JARs not distributed with UIMA-AS have license and
> (partial) notice info in the uima-as LICENSE/NOTICE files.
> 
> One of the value propositions that lets others make use of our technology is the
> reputation we maintain about our always somewhat imperfect attempts at having
> accurate license and notice files.  I would prefer that we strive to keep our
> reputation where it is by removing the license and partial notice for these
> JARs, and perhaps adding some documentation (if needed) specifying what JARs can
> be optionally downloaded (from ActiveMQ distribution) for providing additional
> functionality, not provided out of the box by the UIMA-AS binary distribution.
> 
> Having said that, if the others on the PMC feel that this flaw (having extra
> licenses and extra (partial) notices not needed is OK for releasing, I won't
> stand in the way.
> 
> I'll do a bit more testing, and then if nothing more is found, vote -0 to
> indicate this.
> 
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> 
> -Marshall
> 
> 
> On 4/26/2016 11:05 AM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote:
>> Thanks Marshall. Just to provide more context for the problems found
>> 
>> The JmDNS seems to be part of auto discovery of network of brokers via
>> unicast instead of hard coded URLs.  This is not part of standard uima-as
>> configuration we distribute. When such functionality is needed users may
>> download their own copy of AMQ and use that. Of course there is an issue of
>> having this jar documented in LICENSE and NOTICE but not present in the
>> distribution.
>> 
>> The second one jasypt is providing encryption and decryption of user
>> credentials per: http://activemq.apache.org/encrypted-passwords.html. I
>> think the lack of this jar can also be dealt with the same way as above.
>> 
>> Given the above I will await your vote. One way or the other I need your
>> vote to proceed. Seems like quality of the distribution mandates RC3 vote
>> down.
>> 
>> Jerry
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Although others may be voting +1 to release, just to be clear, I'm
>>> currently -1
>>> until the license / notice issues mentioned above are resolved.
>>> 
>>> -Marshall


Mime
View raw message