Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 29708 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2006 19:04:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Jul 2006 19:04:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 7847 invoked by uid 500); 17 Jul 2006 19:04:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 7810 invoked by uid 500); 17 Jul 2006 19:04:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 7792 invoked by uid 99); 17 Jul 2006 19:04:37 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:04:37 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [63.208.196.171] (HELO outbound.mailhop.org) (63.208.196.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:04:36 -0700 Received: from bi01p1.nc.us.ibm.com ([129.33.49.251] helo=[9.37.214.130]) by outbound.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.51) id 1G2YO7-000IhQ-DI for dev@geronimo.apache.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:04:15 -0400 X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 129.33.49.251 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.mailhop.org/outbound/abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: hogndos Message-ID: <44BBDF2F.2090800@hogstrom.org> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:04:15 -0400 From: Matt Hogstrom User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Macintosh/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Does each module really need LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt? References: <5220D6AB-6FB5-46B6-9526-78BE3C8DFF39@planet57.com> <44BAD429.8000803@gmail.com> <7295AAAA-583C-4D1F-8EF7-5C9BD949186A@planet57.com> <44BAD98E.7070604@gmail.com> <1FD01A2D-C84F-42E1-9EBA-4AB789860C9A@planet57.com> <44BBC383.8010000@hogstrom.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 >>>> >>>> > > > >