geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Re: Geronimo 2.0 License and Notice Files
Date Thu, 12 Jul 2007 02:08:13 GMT

On Jul 11, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:

> If some people could review, that would be great.

on the Active-IO question there is some coding work to be done.

All of the OpenEJB mods should be AL 2.0 but it sounds like there is  
some work to do in OEJB.  I'll ping the list.

> Next steps and pseudo-random license trivia:
> Many jar archives included by Geronimo do not include LICENSE or  
> NOTICE files. In most cases, I've tracked down the appropriate  
> LICENSE information for the resource, and included a url for the  
> LICENSE file. I haven't always done this. So, some work still  
> remains. Most/all of this remaining work involves Apache projects.  
> So, I don't invision a big problem. In some of the cases, the work  
> is not chasing down the license information, but insuring that  
> appropriate LICENSE/NOTICE files are generated in the original jar  
> archive (e.g. OpenEJB).

For the rather long list of jars that don't have any embedded files  
is there a recommendation ?  Unlikely we'll get them fixed.

> We currently include all of our LICENSE information in a single  
> root LICENSE.txt file. Some Apache projects include a licenses/  
> directory, instead. This directory includes all of the non-ASL  
> licenses for the project. Although it's probably a bit more work, I  
> personally prefer a single file. However, this is a debatable  
> point. If others have an opinion, they are welcome to voice it.

One file would be my preference.

> The root LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt files (by "root" I mean the  
> license/notice file in the bottom level directory of our source and  
> binary distributions) contain the license info for the entire  
> assembly.
> We don't currently have different license/notice files that are  
> specific to our Jetty/Tomcat CXF/Axis distributions. Nor do we  
> attempt to generate license/notice files specific to our minimal  
> assemblies. So current course and speed, our root license/notice  
> files will be a superset of all of our various assemblies. This  
> seems fine, to me. If anyone sees a problem with this, speak now...

Perhaps a comment that this assembly includes some or all of ....

> Once all of the data in the google spreadsheet is complete, and  
> we've had a chance to review. I'll plan on generating new  
> LICENSE.txt, NOTICE.txt, and DISCLAIMER.txt files for our 2.0  
> release. I'd guess this will be towards the end of the week/over  
> the weekend. If anyone else is interested in grabbing a shovel and  
> pitching in, let me know...
> --kevan

View raw message