incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Shiro graduation as TLP
Date Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:03:48 GMT

On Aug 17, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Kalle Korhonen wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:09 PM, David Jencks <> wrote:
>> Dunno if it's exactly documentation but see this from Roy Fielding....
>> Based on this I've been advising projects to put the apache LICENSE and and a NOTICE
file that covers the actual contents of svn (i.e. not including stuff that is added to binaries
as part of the build process) at expected svn checkout roots such as, here,
>> I don't consider this a barrier to graduation..
>> +1
> Thanks (and for voting too!). Seems that I'm not only one who's been
> pondering about this. With 17 Maven sub-modules of Shiro seems that
> we'd need 17 copies of the license files scattered around our source
> tree. I'm with Stefano there: I do contest the view that svn is the
> release, but let's leave that for another thread.

Unless your 17 sub-modules are under separate release cycles I wouldn't consider them expected
svn checkout roots so one copy of the license at the root would be sufficient.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about this policy.  On the one hand it's a nuisance to include
a LICENSE file in svn where it isn't part of an official apache release, thus possibly not
legally required, On the other hand I think that for most projects where there only a few
expected svn checkout roots it serves to greatly increase clarity and convenience for non-asf-pros
who happen to check out the source tree to have a quick look.  So on balance I think its a
good idea.

If you really want to torture yourself you can look up the discussion of this and related
issues on legal-discuss :-)

david jencks

> I'm watching the
> issue and perhaps I'll restore the LICENSE file on top of the tree.
> Kalle
>> On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:43 AM, sebb <> wrote:
>>>> Also, just noticed that the SVN tree does not appear to have a copy of
>>>> the LICENSE file.
>>>> Normally this is stored alongside the NOTICE file at the top-level, i.e.
>>>> Looks like the file was deleted in the following commit:
>>>> r979180 | kaosko | 2010-07-26 07:45:44 +0100 (Mon, 26 Jul 2010) | 1 line
>>>> Was this intentional?
>>> Yes, that was intentional, see the commit message:
>>> "Follow through on the suggestions given when 1.0.0 release was made.
>>> Removed LICENSE.txt as that is added to the source distro via Apache
>>> parent pom and its remote resource plugin configuration. Renamed
>>> NOTICE.txt to NOTICE so it'll replace the default one. Note that
>>> indicates that the
>>> LICENSE file needs to be present only in the source distro (and not in
>>> svn as Sebb claimed) so we are ok. Also note that ant suggested
>>> removing the SoftHashMap and Spring related comments completely from
>>> NOTICE file but they are regarding copyrights so look fine to me, will
>>> confirm on dev list."
>>> If you can point out any documentation that says LICENSE will is
>>> required in svn, I'll put it in otherwise I'll avoid the redundancy.
>>> In any case, thanks for taking a look!
>>> More recently, I also integrated apache-rat (the maven plugin) to our
>>> build process.
>>> Kalle
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message