cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>
Subject Re: Licenses of Libraries [was Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/src/blocks/html/lib jtidy-04aug2000r7-dev.jar.license]
Date Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:42:57 GMT
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

>Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>  
>
>>cziegeler@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>> Start placing license next to the jars. 
>>> This enables us
>>> - to check which licenses are missing
>>> - to write tools to check this
>>> - to easily update a license of a jar if the license changes
>>>      
>>>
>>But does it make any sense? 
>>    
>>
>Sure :)
>
>  
>
>>I don't see it. legal/ was much 
>>more elegant 
>>- and user friendly.
>>    
>>
>Was it? It seems that it is more user friendly but I think it's not.
>How do you know, which libraries we have are covered by licenses
>in the legal/ directory
>

I had not said anything about dev-friendly :-)


> and which library is coverd by which file?
>E.g. if you have an excalibur.*.jar or a commons-*.jar, how can
>you see that this is covered by the LICENSE.Avalon resp.
>the for jakarta commons?
>  
>

I would expect LICENSE.excalibur and LICENSE.commons files to be in legal/
Alternatively, jars should be named avalon-excalibur-*; so there would 
be no place for ambiguity, one way or another.


>Even worse with the next releases of Apache projects, they use
>the new 2.0 license, so in the case of Avalon you have subprojects
>that have been released with the old and others that have been
>released with the new one. THen you need a way to tell which
>library uses what license.
>  
>

Well, this is transient issue. But I'd expect all excalibur-* libraries 
to be re-released with license v2 more or less simulteneously.


>There was the strong feeling in the pmc list days ago that we
>  
>

(and we had strong feelings against it as well)


>need a tool to check if every lib in our cvs is covered
>by a license. With the current structure, this is impossible.
>  
>

Possible, if license file starts with (LICENSE.excalibur) or ends with 
(excalibur.LICENSE) beginning of the JAR file name (excalibur-bla-bla-bla).


>So, we need one license file per library and the easiest way
>is to give it the same name as the library itself. So, checking
>is easy.
>  
>

One license per project is more appropriate, and checking is still possible.


>And we saw (with JISP, but also with the ASF projects changing
>to 2.0) that licenses for a project change. I bet that usually
>we only update the jar file but never touch the license that
>our stored somewhere else. WIth this approach, you have at
>least to rename the license and this should help in keeping
>the license upto date.
>  
>

But from the users POV, licenses are all spread across module - instead 
of one (convinient) location.


>This has discussed a while ago I think on the committers list
>(or somewhere else) and the output was that each jar should
>have the license directly next to the jar.
>
>I mentioned this days ago on the PMC list and noone disagreed,
>so... :)
>  
>

Oops. Did I miss my chance?


>Ok, I really thing that we need a license file per lib. Otherwhise
>tracking is impossible. And giving this file the same name as
>the jar (including version) makes imho sense as well.
>
>If these are stored in the /legal directly or right next to
>the jars is imho not so important.
>  
>

Well, it's really not so important; I guess it's matter of taste.

Vadim


Mime
View raw message