commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <simon.kitch...@chello.at>
Subject Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release
Date Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT
---- Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On Jan 10, 2008 8:51 AM, Simon Kitching <simon.kitching@chello.at> wrote:
> 
> > Sorry to repeat myself again, but I really do not think the maven-remote-resources
approach is
> > even legal. IANAL, but as I understand things, we *must* not use this.
> 
> Simon,
> 
> I understand your concern to mean, that the NOTICE file generated by
> the mrr plugin doesn't
> match what we would otherwise want to have as the NOTICE file. If
> that's the case, then I agree
> with you, that we should not use it by default *right now*. However,
> that's also something that
> can be adressed by the mrr plugin itself or by a particular subclass
> that we might create.
> 
> Therefore, I stick to my opinion that it is the better way to go.


No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* information about the files
in the current maven module. The NOTICE should *never* *never* have information about files
in other maven modules, ie data should *never* be pulled from other poms in order to generate
the NOTICE file.

As this is the core concept of the maven-remote-resources, we should therefore *never* use
the maven-remote-resources plugin.

We *could* possibly debate whether the LICENSE file could be pulled from somewhere else rather
than have a copy checked in to each maven module. But the whole *concept* of NOTICE *generation*
using data from other modules just seems wrong and legally dangerous.

Regards,
Simon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message