directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot ...@marcelot.net>
Subject Re: Release fo shared
Date Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:54:30 GMT
Awesome!

Thanks Stefan!

Regards
Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot
On dimanche 13 février 2011 at 22:26, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> I hope all issues are fixed:
> 
> The shared-all module now only shades artifacts with groupId
> "org.apache.directory", 3rd-party artifacts are not included. So no
> special NOTICE/LICENSE file is requried.
> 
> There is a new "distribution" module, it is only activated in
> apache-release profile. It creates source and binary distributions,
> including 3rd party JARs. All required attribution notices and
> licenses for 3rd JARs are listed in src/main/release/licenses.
> 
> I'll prepare the release now and launch a vote afterwards.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Stefan
> 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Rethinking about the problem this morning under my shower, here are some
> > more thoughts, as I was probably not clear enough.
> > 
> > - shared-all source and binary packages both should contain NOTICE and
> > LICENSES for all the 3rd parties jars
> > - individuals jars (say, shared-model.jar) should not include a NOTICE or
> > LICENSES files.
> > 
> > 
> > On 2/13/11 1:40 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> > > 
> > > Comments on line
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure when those notices should/must be added.
> > > 
> > > Let's try to figure out...
> > > > 
> > > > It's clear, when distributing a binary distribution (e.g.
> > > > ldap-api.zip) where third-party dependencies are included that the
> > > > licenses and notices of those third-party dependencies have to be
> > > > added.
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > 
> > > > But is the attribution also required in the JARs (both, binary or
> > > > source, there in META-INF/LICENSE and META-INF/NOTICE) that are
> > > > distributed via maven?
> > > 
> > > Depends...
> > > 
> > > > I see the following different cases:
> > > > 1) In shared-ldap-model we use Antlr to generate Java files. So I
> > > > think in the distributed shared-ldap-model-X.Y.Z.jar the Antlr
> > > > attribution is required.
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > > 
> > > > 2) The common case that a 3rd-party libary is used/linked in main code
> > > > (e.g. dom4j or slf4j). Our distributed JAR only contains our
> > > > .java/.class files. The third-party jar is not redistributed. The
> > > > dom4j and slf4j licenses say that attribution is required in case the
> > > > software is 'used'. Does 'use' already include the case that their
> > > > classes are linked? But in that case we
> > > 
> > > As soon as we distribute something which makes necessary to include a
> > > thrid party jar, I think we should also include the 3rd party licenses.
> > > 
> > > Remember that we release *sources*, not binaries. Binaries are just
> > > generated for convenience. But in any case, we release in order for users to
> > > be able to get our packages, and use them in their own products. Somehow, we
> > > have to make them safe when doing so, that means include the mandatory
> > > licenses and notice to spare the the burden to do so.
> > > 
> > > At least, this is how I understand the way we should do things at the
> > > ASF...
> > > 
> > > > 3) Similar like 2, but the 3rd-party is only used as test dependency
> > > > (like junit). Here the code is not distributed at all.
> > > 
> > > Still, we distribute sources, which means tests, and users should be able
> > > to build the project by downloading our sources. That include tests. Of
> > > course, we don't distribute the associated jars (I was thinking about
> > > findbugs), so in this case, we are not forced to inject the associated
> > > license. Tests are supposed to be run using Maven, pointing to external
> > > dependencies we *don't* provide. However, I still think it's safe to add a
> > > reference to the used libs in the NOTICE.
> > > 
> > > > 4) 3rd-party source code is included (e.g. in apacheds/jdbm or in
> > > > junit-addons). Here it is clear that attribution is required.
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > 
> > > Note that this is my perception of the way we should handle those
> > > license/notice thingy. I may be wrong...
> > > 
> > > Hope it helps...
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Cordialement,
> > Emmanuel Lécharny
> > www.iktek.com
> 

Mime
View raw message