geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: More to be added to licenses file for 1.1.1 ?
Date Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:12:38 GMT
Technically... its bad for a module to need to access bits from ../  
(or ../../ or ../../../../../../).  The proper way to do this would  
be to add them to a new license module, then have each module depend  
on it, using dependency plugin to download unpack and then antrun to  
copy into place.

Still easier to have LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt local to the module.   
Most of them will be the same, so not much work to maintain... a few  
will need to be customized to keep us legal.

If we want to have a global... then we gotta write up some custom  
plugin to handle that automatically for us.


On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:04 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:

> On Jul 18, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>> On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:53 AM, John Sisson wrote:
>>>> Whilst testing the geronimo eclipse plugin, eclipse prompted me  
>>>> to acknowledge the Sun license at 
>>>> license/berkeley_license.html when caching the j2ee schema files  
>>>> (e.g. ).
>>>> This made me wonder whether this license has been included for  
>>>> Geronimo (since we redistribute schema files) and it appears the  
>>>> LICENSE.txt file in 1.1 doesn't contain it.
>>>> I'll add a JIRA for 1.1.1 if there aren't any objections.
>>>> Can anyone think of any other licenses or notices we may have  
>>>> overlooked?
>>> Yes. Would appreciate your thoughts on the following:
>>> 1) Fix LICENSE and NOTICE files for branches/1.1/modules/util  
>>> (currently they are only Bouncy Castle -- I believe that we have  
>>> ASL code in there, also).
>> I think we should do it
>>> 2) Do we need to add Bouncy Castle to our "global" LICENSE and  
>>> NOTICE files (i.e. branches/1.1/modules/scripts/src/resources/) ?  
>>> I think yes.
>>> 3) Insure NOTICE files are included in our jar files (currently  
>>> only LICENSE files are there)
>>> 4) Do we need to add LICENSE/NOTICE files in our generated CARs?
>>> 5) Can the "global" LICENSE and NOTICE files be used in all our  
>>> generated artifacts (distributions, jars, cars)? Or do we need  
>>> global files and specific license/notice files for generated  
>>> module jars and car files?
>>> --kevan
>> 2-4 should be run by legal, no?
>> To support #5, I hope we don't need some kind of maven magic.
> I think 1,2,3 are must do's. I think we can ignore 4. There are  
> some CAR "files" in ibiblio -- 
> geronimo/cars/ However, I'm not sure why they are there... They are  
> all "1.0" and dated December 22nd. Should we have them removed? To  
> my knowledge, we don't build or distribute CAR files in 1.1 (we do  
> have ".car" directories in our repository, but IMO that's no  
> different from any other directory name we might have...)
> Regarding 5, I think the right thing to do is have a global LICENSE  
> and NOTICE file in the base of our distributions. We currently have  
> this. Each of our jar files should have LICENSE and NOTICE files  
> specific to each jar. I don't think that this is hard to do. Am I  
> wrong? They all need standard ASL license and notice files. util  
> needs to include bouncy castle info. Are there other geronimo  
> generated jars with any licensing requirements beyond ASL 2?
> --kevan

View raw message