geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: Does each module really need LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt?
Date Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:04:15 GMT
I am referring to the modules.  What I meant was if we have 25 modules and everyone has its
own 
license and notices file I'm pretty confident they'll get out of sync.  It would be nice to
have a 
central place to pull the content from which should be modules/scripts/resources/*

What I meant by the notices being an issue is that a single notices file identifies what additional

licenses are in a module.  So, it may or may not make sense for the Kernel module to have
a 
Bouncycastle NOTICE.

If its ok to havbe a complete NOTICES file that includes licenses that are not in a module
then that 
would be fine.  It would be nice to say, "Geronimo-Kernel may include one or more of the following

elements."  If we have to be precise on a module by module basis then I think that will be
a problem.

Kevan Miller wrote:
> 
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> 
>> Well, I think adding the files to every module is potentially a 
>> problem.  I think the release should have a central place all modules 
>> derive their LICENSE file from.  The NOTICIES file is a different animal.
> 
> Matt,
> What "modules" are you referring to? All of our generated jar files 
> (.e.g geronimo-kernel-1.1.jar) should contain LICENSE and NOTICE files. 
> Hrrm, I just looked at two 1.1 jars and they only contain LICENSE files.
> 
> We also need a LICENSE and NOTICE file at the base of our distributions. 
> These should contain all necessary license and notice information for 
> all of the Geronimo code built and included in our distribution. The 
> license and notice file also need to contain license and notice 
> information for all jar files, or other artifacts, that we include in 
> our distribution (e.g. asm jar, castor jar, etc...).
> 
> Or, are you instead referring to "modules" as in CAR's? If so, then they 
> are a different animal. However, I don't think we're released from any 
> licensing requirements.
> 
> Given the guidelines in 
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain 
> (see the "Can I distribute a raw artifact?" section at the bottom), I 
> think that any downloadable artifact (distribution, car, jar, war, ear, 
> etc) that we "release" to ibiblio should have appropriate license and 
> notice files (alternatively, we stop releasing the artifact).
> 
> --kevan
> 
>>
>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> If we want to keep these guys in the jars, then we should move them 
>>> to their standard src/main/resources/META-INF/* locations so that 
>>> they get picked up automatically.
>>> --jason
>>> On Jul 16, 2006, at 5:27 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>> Um... when were these ever included in the module's jars before?
>>>>>
>>>>> --jason
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 16, 2006, at 5:04 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>> Does each module really need LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or can we just have this at the top-level of the project?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd rather have less duplicate files to maintain...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any comments?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --jason
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think they are needed as each downloadable jar (which each 
>>>>>> module has) should contain the license and notice files.  Same 
>>>>>> with source archives, which AFAIK maven can produce for each 
>>>>>> individual module for use by IDE debuggers etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I just checked and if you look at geronimo-activation-1.1.jar it 
>>>> should contain META-INF\LICENSE.TXT .  It is a problem that the 
>>>> NOTICE.txt file isn't also included.
>>>>
>>>> We should add a JIRA for the 1.1.1 release for that.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message