groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <>
Subject Re: [mentors] experimental graduation maturity assessment in view of graduating Groovy
Date Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:51:09 GMT
Le 16/10/15 16:43, Paul King a écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Cédric Champeau
> <> wrote:
>> Such a list was written for the proposal:
>> Since then we have made a great effort towards generating different LICENSE
>> files depending on the artifacts we produce. Everything can be found in the
>> license directory:
>> And assembling the licenses depending on the artifacts is done here:
>> I am kind of reluctant to write the list explicitly where we have tools to
>> check everything (Rat plugin, license report): the list could become
>> obsolete very easily without us noticing.
> Agreed. Our source dependency license/notice info is already in the
> source release. Our runtime dependency license/notice info is already
> in the respective jars/zips. RAT does a check on our source files. And
> now the gradle license report plugin does a cross-check on what we
> already know from the license files. I believe we are well and truly
> covered.

To be clear :
- the source packages must contain the N&L files listing all the
contained depeencies (and teh required N&L for those dependencies-
- the binary packages that are distributed must also contain the same things
- the dependencies used to build Groovy are not part of what must be
listed (although it might be cool to do so), unless they generates some
code or documentation (typically what antlr does)

The rational being that anyone who want to download, and embed groovy in
their own product must be aware of those dependencies. If some of them
are optional, then it should be clearly stated somewhere (and solhere
means N&L).

Keep in mind that many companies are very picky about those things.

Anyway, I think it's already correctly covered, as of today.


View raw message