geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Proposal for use of maven-remote-resources-plugin
Date Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:30:49 GMT

On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> On Mar 8, 2008, at 1:09 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> There's been a bunch of discussion on legal-discuss recently about  
>> exactly what should be in the license and notice files and after  
>> looking over the remote-resource-plugin I think we could use it to  
>> provide correct and useful information by doing the following:
>>
>>
>> 1. Produce 3 files: LICENSE, NOTICE, and DEPENDENCIES (new)
>> 2. The standard LICENSE and NOTICE files would be ALv2 and the  
>> standard NOTICE (with ".vm" appended to the file name).  No  
>> processing except date range if appropriate.
>> 3. Additional licenses and notices need to be ascertained by hand  
>> and files containing these additions put in src/main/appended- 
>> resources.  For instance src/main/appended-resources/LICENSE and  
>> src/main/appended-resources/NOTICE
>> 4. In addition, for the convenience of our users, we provide a  
>> list of transitive dependencies with origin.  This would be pretty  
>> similar to what the standard resource bundle puts into the NOTICE  
>> file.
>>
>> 5. genesis would be modified to use this plugin and this bundle by  
>> default.
>>
>> David Blevins has a dependencies plugin at codehaus/swizzle that  
>> provides hierarchy information by indenting but doesn't seem to  
>> provide provenance.  At this point I think I'd prefer the  
>> provenance info to the  indentation.  If someone has an idea about  
>> how to get both easily I'm all ears.
>>
>> I'd prefer it if there was an easy way to roll up NOTICES and  
>> LICENSES for projects that physically include jars from other  
>> projects (such as our servers and jee applications and plugins)  
>> but I think that leaving that capability to future developments in  
>> the m-r-r-p might be wise.
>>
>> I'm having some trouble getting the genesis release OK without the  
>> m-r-r-p so I'd kinda like to get this implemented in the next day  
>> or two.
>
>
> Sounds good to me. To make sure I understand...
>
> So, it sounds like this is essentially creating the same  
> information that we currently have in our geronimo/server (LICENSE  
> and NOTICE files) and subprojects. Correct? Difference being  
> whitespace/editorial in nature. As long as we have essentially the  
> same info and aren't adding the cruft that the m-r-r-p wants to add  
> by default, I think I'll be fine with this...
>
> IIUC, this proposal means we remove most of the LICENSE and NOTICE  
> files in our svn (e.g. server/trunk/framework/modules/geronimo- 
> kernel/LICENSE.txt). The one exception is the LICENSE/NOTICE files  
> in the root of a src distribution file, which must be maintained in  
> svn, and perhaps license/notice files in assemblies (perhaps). Some  
> modules and configs which require additional license/notice info,  
> will have this info placed in src/main/appended-resources. This  
> information will be automatically appended to the standard license/ 
> notice info. One example of a module requiring this treatment would  
> be server/trunk/framework/modules/geronimo-crypto/LICENSE.txt.

yes

>
> I don't really have any objections to a DEPENDENCIES file, but I am  
> not sure what it adds. It's certainly not a requirement. I'd be  
> interested to hear how you think it will be used...

I think it makes it easier to look for possible license problems in  
dependent jars that are likely to be needed to use the jar containing  
the dependency file.  I always thought that was the reason why the m- 
r-r-p put that info in NOTICE

Will commit this stuff later tonight or tomorrow.

thanks
david jencks

>
> --kevan
>


Mime
View raw message