directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [Studio] Heavy refactoring on Studio's build (was Re: [Studio] Using the Maven Release Plugin)
Date Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:11:26 GMT
I don't know what is in your jars under discussion.

My understanding of the policies about LICENSE and NOTICE files is  
that they apply to what is actually in the artifact (jar in this case)  
being distributed.  The DEPENDENCIES file you mention includes  
information about stuff that is not included in the artifact but is  
likely to be needed to actually use it: this is provided purely as a  
convenience for users that want to get a head start on tracking the  
licenses of these dependencies.

So, unless you are actually including in the jar some code under a  
different license or that has been contributed to apache with  
additional NOTICE requirements then the standard LICENSE and NOTICE  
files from the maven remote resources plugin with the latest apache  
bundle should be fine.

That's my understanding anyway.... there always seems to be a lot of  
arguments from ant lovers and C coders whenever this is discussed.
david jencks


On Sep 25, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Felix Knecht wrote:

> Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot schrieb:
>>
>> I think we're done with this refactoring. Everything has been  
>> replaced
>> and still works. :)
> :-)
>>
>> While we were doing this, I noticed that the LICENCE.TXT and
>> NOTICE.TXT files that are located in the META-INF folder are not  
>> used,
>> nor included in the final jar.
>>
>> However, hopefully we don't ship our jars without having these files
>> included. I believe they are added (with an extra DEPENDENCIES file)
>> by Maven during the build. I remember a discussion about that some
>> time ago on the mailing list.
>>
>> Now, the question is: If the produced files are legally OK, I think  
>> we
>> should remove the ones in META-INF.
> I'm not a laywer so I can't say OK....
> The LICENSE and NOTICE file added are the once from Apache - at least
> they look alike.
> ATM we to have other licenses also mentioned in the
> META-INF/LICENSE.TXT. The DEPENDENCIES file seems to collect them but
> they seem to be taken from the transitive dependency poms. If the
> configuration of these poms is not complete we don't get them in, e.g.
> nlog4j, xpp3:
>
> e.g. studio-dsml-parser DEPENDENCIES:
> // Transitive dependencies of this project determined from the
> // maven pom organized by organization.
> // ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Apache Directory Studio DSML Parser
>
>
> From: 'an unknown organization'
>  - AntLR Parser Generator (http://www.antlr.org/) antlr:antlr:jar: 
> 2.7.7
>    License: BSD License  (http://www.antlr.org/license.html)
>  - nlog4j  org.slf4j:nlog4j:jar:1.2.25
>
>  - Unnamed - xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.3.4.O
> (http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/xgws/xsoap/xpp/mxp1/)
> xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.3.4.O
>
>
> From: 'Apache Software Foundation' (http://www.apache.org/)
>  - XML Commons External Components XML APIs
> (http://xml.apache.org/commons/#external) xml-apis:xml-apis:jar:1.0.b2
>    License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0
> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt)
>
> From: 'JUnit' (http://www.junit.org)
>  - JUnit (http://junit.org) junit:junit:jar:3.8.2
>    License: Common Public License Version 1.0
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.txt)
>
> From: 'MetaStuff Ltd.' (http://sourceforge.net/projects/dom4j)
>  - dom4j (http://dom4j.org) dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1
>
>
> From: 'QOS.ch' (http://www.qos.ch)
>  - SLF4J API Module (http://www.slf4j.org) org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar: 
> 1.5.2
>
>
> From: 'The Apache Software Foundation' (http://jakarta.apache.org)
>  - Collections (http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/)
> commons-collections:commons-collections:jar:3.2
>    License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0  (/LICENSE.txt)
>  - Lang (http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/lang/)
> commons-lang:commons-lang:jar:2.3
>    License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0  (/LICENSE.txt)
>
> From: 'The Apache Software Foundation' (http://www.apache.org/)
>  - Apache Directory ASN.1 Shared
> (http://www.apache.org/project/shared-parent/shared-asn1)
> org.apache.directory.shared:shared-asn1:jar:0.9.13-SNAPSHOT
>    License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0
> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt)
>  - Apache Directory Protocol Ldap Shared
> (http://www.apache.org/project/shared-parent/shared-ldap)
> org.apache.directory.shared:shared-ldap:jar:0.9.13-SNAPSHOT
>    License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0
> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt)
>  - Apache Directory Protocol Ldap Shared Constants
> (http://www.apache.org/project/shared-parent/shared-ldap-constants)
> org.apache.directory.shared:shared-ldap-constants:jar:0.9.13-SNAPSHOT
>    License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0
> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt)
>
>>
>> WDOT ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pierre-Arnaud
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot
>> <pa@marcelot.net <mailto:pa@marcelot.net>> wrote:
>>
>>    On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Felix Knecht <felixk@apache.org
>>    <mailto:felixk@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>>        Just some more questions...
>>
>>        What about all the *features MF files? Is it the same as for
>>        *help MFs?
>>
>>
>>    Yep.
>>
>>
>>
>>        What about the dsml-parser MF?
>>
>>
>>    I was thinking about letting maven do this for us, as this is a
>>    simple jar. Same thing for the apacheds-launcher project.
>>
>>    Regards,
>>    Pierre-Arnaud
>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message