uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jaroslaw Cwiklik <uim...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA-AS 2.8.1 RC3
Date Wed, 27 Apr 2016 15:37:05 GMT
We dont bundle all of AMQ to prevent bloating the distribution with things
that are not normally used. Same reason why we dont package all of uima sdk
with the uima-as. Including all jars from AMQ will certainly bloat the
LICENSE and NOTICE files.

If the release is voted down, I will remove references to jars not included
in the distribution, make some comments in the documentation about what
parts of AMQ we support and also make a recommendation about what to do in
case there is missing functionality in the AMQ we ship with UIMA-AS.

Jerry

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Lou DeGenaro <lou.degenaro@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Why do we feel the need to edit the AMQ distribution rather than include it
> and its Notice and License information in its entirety?  If we think a
> lighter weight AMQ distribution is desirable, any chance of get the AMQ
> folks to provide such instead of us hacking?
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho <
> rec@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message