chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jukka Zitting <>
Subject Re: Is a custom LICENSE.vm needed at all? (was: Re: [VOTE] Release chemistry-jar-resource-bundle 0.3.0 (RC1))
Date Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:23:40 GMT

On 03/02/2011 07:05 PM, Gabriele Columbro wrote:
> Technically speaking, the way we add it to the packages is the proper
> one I believe (using the maven-shared-resources-plugin just as any
> Maven ASF artifact).

The main idea behind it is that all release packages should have a 
LICENSE file that includes or at least references the license terms of 
all IP included in that package.

Thus we need to include such extra notes only in jars or other packages 
that include bits that are under other licenses than the ALv2. Most 
notably Maven dependencies need only be mentioned in the LICENSE file if 
the build embeds the dependencies in the resulting build artifact like 
is done for example in the dist and webapp packages.

> Yes having it SVN would be easy. Maybe not in the LICENSE file. In the
> README would work?

All licensing information should be in the LICENSE file. The best place 
to put such notes is in src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE for 
jar archives and in the appropriate other locations for other kinds of 

Using a shared resource bundle for this is useful if you'd otherwise end 
up duplicating the same information too many times, but it's probably 
not worth the extra complexity for eliminating just a few duplicates.

> I'm wondering how other ASF projects (with external dependencies) do.

See [1] and [2] for how this is done in Jackrabbit for jar and war 
archives. There we explicitly include all the licenses of embedded 
external components, but also just a reference to the relevant license 
terms would be OK.


Jukka Zitting

View raw message