geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review LICENSE and NOTICE of Geronimo 3.0-beta-1
Date Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:25:05 GMT
Thanks Rex!

A couple of points:

1) source LICENSE and the LICENSE  file included in generated binaries (e.g. ) are not in
sync. If I recall correctly, there are

2) there are artifacts that are missing from the source LICENSE. E.g.:
    * repository/com/sun/xml/bind/jaxb-xjc/2.2.3-1/jaxb-xjc-2.2.3-1.jar
    * repository/org/apache/wink/wink-common/1.1.3-incubating/wink-common-1.1.3-incubating.jar

    That's just from some random searches. There needs to be some concerted effort to identify
all artifacts and insure they are listed.

3) W3C license for soap_encoding.xsd should refer to our source, not jar:

   "The artifacts under the following folder are also covered by the above W3C license:

    soap_encoding_1_1.xsd in ./repository/org/apache/geronimo/modules/geronimo-webservices-builder/"

Above should refer to "plugins/webservices/geronimo-webservices-builder/src/main/resources/META-INF/schema/soap_encoding_1_1.xsd",
I think. Not the jar. Looks like you didn't create this problem, but now something to fix...
;-)

4) I see that you've changed from listing explicit artifacts (e.g. repository/com/sun/xml/bind/jaxb-xjc/2.2.3-1/jaxb-xjc-2.2.3-1.jar)
to folders/directories (e.g. repository/com/sun/xml/bind/jaxb-xjc/). I probably prefer the
explicit names, but I don't know anything wrong with listing the directory/folder. Although
it could lead to some imprecision... Using directory/folder names makes things simpler in
subsequent releases (as version numbers change, etc) -- as long as we're inspecting for license/notice
changes...

If anyone is suitably motivated, an automated tool to help generate this information would
certainly be very much appreciated by Geronimo and ASF community. The RAT incubator project
would be a good home for this. I haven't been following the community. So, perhaps there has
been some development there...

5) This is a change to the way we've handled dual licensed artifacts in the past -- we don't
need to include both licenses in the LICENSE file and select one. We can simply the make our
choice and only include the relevant LICENSE (e.g. for CDDL/GPL artifacts, we only need include
the CDDL license -- no mention of GPL in license/notice files is needed). If I can get some
time, I'll try and make these updates...

--kevan

On Oct 19, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Rex Wang wrote:

> 
> Hi Devs,
> 
> I just updated the LICENSE and NOTICE file of 3.0-beta-1 at revision: 1186228.
> Could anyone help reivew them so that we can avoid some issues in vote?
> 
> regards,
> -- 
> Lei Wang (Rex)
> rwonly AT apache.org


Mime
View raw message