Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
From: "Carsten Ziegeler" <cziegeler@s-und-n.de>
To: "Cocoon-Dev" <dev@cocoon.apache.org>
Subject: Licenses of Libraries [was Re: cvs commit:
 cocoon-2.1/src/blocks/html/lib jtidy-04aug2000r7-dev.jar.license]
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:06:44 +0100
Organization: S&N AG
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AcP+LgESjq7Nbp3cTZKsLctmx1yc9A==
Message-ID: <OFF3B2A2E6.A5107739-ONC1256E48.0068594C@sundn.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"

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 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?
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.

There was the strong feeling in the pmc list days ago that we
need a tool to check if every lib in our cvs is covered
by a license. With the current structure, this is impossible.
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.

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.

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... :)

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.

WDYT?

Carsten