OSDir

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [VOTE] Release XBean 4.7 (take 2)


well, that's why we had the BSD in there! You see?

And no, the current NOTICE is NOT wrong. The BSD-3clause, the ALv2 etc allow to create a derivative work which is under another license. And this is why we have

"Apache XBean Copyright 2005-2013 The Apache Software Foundation"

in the NOTICE file.

But of course, by removing the BSD part from the NOTICE file this is now totally off.
Note that the original legal ticket was created for a project which only had a very few BSD classes. In our case the majority or work is BSD. Still the summary derivative work (our shaded bundle) is ALv2.

So my personal opinion is to revert back to the previous version of the NOTICE!

LieGrue,
strub



On Monday, 19 March 2018, 15:11:23 CET, John D. Ament <johndament@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


-1
The NOTICE file in the JAR is now worse.  It indicates that the code was developed at the ASF.

IMHO, there should be no NOTICE file in the JAR.

If the NOTICE file includes just

Apache XBean :: ASM 6 shaded (repackaged)
Copyright 2005-2018 The Apache Software Foundation

That should be enough.

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:01 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi!

Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.

Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1053
The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1053/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
sha1 is c17fb38c503b0d0c0798b0fde9cf1544d19681d0

Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10) and fixing asm NOTICE file.

[+1] ship it
[-1] nope, stop because ${reason}

The VOTE is open for 72h.

Here is my +1.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book