Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of simone.tripodi@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: simone.tripodi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOGo0VYNwT51eSxsOht-TDpne-POCO0xUd8b01mybipapybdFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAAqLGLOZYsK0dxfuEkPuzxQ1dHA+-ax05AVUdRiiKEfcpsZ9GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOGo0VZKA15OVcRJHC5jTzJM0Rbbrfb_D+MfA=VkENyJ0_dghQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAqLGLOVxsqe7-GueTkSumW0sKbXHCau6YmGW6qgs6isjKTdFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOGo0VYNwT51eSxsOht-TDpne-POCO0xUd8b01mybipapybdFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 19:38:25 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAAqLGLMV4BUjb-G0AH=P1r-XDfQcxqT=zu5Qnhrz7BY088=tRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Digester 3.2 based on RC1
From: Simone Tripodi <simonetripodi@apache.org>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>
> There are two aspects to this.
>
> 1) Does the artifact actually included the 3rd party code?
> If not, then it should not be mentioned at all.
>

it does not include the 3rd party source code, only the binary
artifact - and it has to be mentioned because, as reported in their
license,

> "2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
>
> where "the above copyright notice" is
>
>  Copyright (c) 2000-2011 INRIA, France Telecom
>  All rights reserved.

what is actually missing, is the disclaimer

> 2) If the artifact does *include* the code, then the LICENSE must be
> included, and if the license says so, there must be a mention in the
> NOTICE file.
>
> Every mention in the NOTICE file should have a corresponding entry in
> the LICENSE file; not every license requires a mention in the NOTICE
> file.
>
> In this case, there need to be two sets of N&L files - one for the
> shaded jar, which mention the additional included components, and
> another for the rest, which are presumably ASF code only.
>
> Looks like it would be easy enough to include specific N&L files in
> the shaded jar; if not, maybe use a separate Maven module to do the
> shading and hold the N&L files?
>

separate maven module? no thank you, that would be insane, it is a
large amount of unnecessary work. 1000 times better dropping the =C3=BCber
jar and make everybody happy instead.

>>>
>>> Ideally the LICENSE file should also state that AL 2.0 applies to CGLIB=
.
>>>
>>
>> isn't it more enough mention 3rd parties in the NOTICE file?
>
> No, LICENSES are also needed.
>

can be easily achieved

>
> I mean, after the AL license, one can put:
>
> APACHE COMMONS DIGESTER SUBCOMPONENTS:
>
> The Apache Commons Digester with-deps jar ncludes a number of subcomponen=
ts with
> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
> conditions of the following licenses.
>
> For the CGLIB component (http://cglib.sourceforge.net/)
> This is licensed under the AL 2.0, see above
>
> For the ASM component (http://asm.ow2.org/):
> [include the license here]
>
> See for example:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE
>

that would be a good compromise, I'll write to legal@ anyway because
at that point I want to understand all that legal stuff

-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/

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