Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sebbaz@gmail.com designates
 209.85.219.172 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=T9wkLd5SJkCRiWGxPUR/yeU46wI/D1r1WuMwvRBW+tslkAwpqo3/buB1NP74Hs2ogq
         DSrgoK11/wki6ydzBUkRSJFOHBXYKefZ6/4ZWtHrIX6cPevWJYgz4uCXgRVusWo0Fv/T
         9LwsLtfQozQkiB6EePrd+iyz20OsUzhuDMVm8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <510143ac0905110236ka22202et200f89284a8b6fbb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A05BCE7.6030409@apache.org>
	 <25aac9fc0905091343l69d71358x73aac1c5b19b6295@mail.gmail.com>
	 <510143ac0905110236ka22202et200f89284a8b6fbb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:44:55 +0100
Message-ID: <25aac9fc0905110244m5e7fdf4eyc5f7a136f85ce2ba@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Publish Apache Sling Release
From: sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 11/05/2009, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>  On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 10:43 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > There are rather a lot of LICENSE and NOTICE files dotted around the
>  > source archive.
>
>
> That's in anticipation of the future release model that Sling is
>  targetting. Instead of a big bang release like this or the previous
>  release, Sling is planning to start releasing individual components
>  separately. Each of these components will then need their own
>  licensing information. Currently Sling includes licensing metadata
>  both on the top level and on component level.

OK, but they need to be consistent.

>
>  > I would expect the top-level one to be a superset of the lower level
>  > ones, but this is not the case as the top-level L &or N files don't
>  > mention Rhino.
>
>
> The source archive does not contain Rhino code, so there's no need to
>  mention it in the LICENSE or NOTICE files.

In which case, please can it be removed?
It's confusing.

>
>  > Binary archive
>  > ==========
>  > The LICENSE does not mention JSON or Rhino
>  > The NOTICE file does not mention JSON or Rhino
>  >
>  > The nested binary archive contains a copy of Groovy and Jetty, neither
>  > of which is credited anywhere as far as I can tell. I would expect at
>  > least a mention in the LICENSE files, as these are not ASF projects.
>
>
> I noted this too [1], but I didn't consider this a blocking issue as
>  the licensing information of all the embedded dependencies can be
>  found inside the bundles packaged in resources/bundles within the top
>  level binaries. For example, the Groovy licensing information can be
>  found in resources/bundles/0/groovy-all-1.6.0.jar. It would of course
>  be preferable if this information was included or at least referenced
>  in the top level LICENSE and NOTICE files.

I don't think it's OK to expect users to have to trawl through all the
NOTICE and LICENSE files to find all the required information. IMO,
the top-level L & N files need to relate to the entire contents.

>  [1] http://markmail.org/message/nn64fjgnmlxvqov6
>
>  BR,
>
>
>  Jukka Zitting
>
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org