commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <>
Subject Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release
Date Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:25:41 GMT
On Jan 10, 2008 9:01 AM, sebb <> wrote:

> AIUI, the NOTICE file is not about dependencies, it is about the
> artefacts that are actually included in the distribution.

Absolutely correct, I interpret as being about the copyright in our
source, not things we redistribute. And given we don't even
redistribute dependencies... even less important.

I think it's definitely true that you could put the NOTICE files from
the dependencies in the NOTICE, and concatenate the LICENSEs from the
dependencies onto the LICENSE file; and if this were a GPL C project
then I would be tempted to do just that. In Java we get to
redistribute binaries and so I think it's cleaner to put the
license/notice files next to the redistributed jars.

> In the case of Commons, dependencies are normally not included in the
> distribution, and should therefore not be included in NOTICE.

+1000. It's plain wrong.

> Indeed, I suspect that most (possibly all) Commons distributions need
> the same NOTICE file - the only difference being the initial copyright
> year.
> Or have I missed something here?

Look at Common EL's NOTICE. Look at Apache HTTP Server's LICENSE.

Both files should not be the same; and the final copyright year
shouldn't either (ie: just because you build in 2008, doesn't
magically give us 2008 as a latest copyright year).

Making LICENSE/NOTICE inclusion easier is a good idea - but the
mrr-plugin has solved it wrong as far as I can tell. We should solve
it ourselves by making all components pull the same filenames into the
jars we want them to go into (binary/source/javadoc).


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message