incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Date Sat, 03 Dec 2011 02:01:21 GMT
On 2 December 2011 20:51, Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK.  Looking at the current Apache releases, I notice that Apache
> Abdera seems to have a pretty comprehensive NOTICE file that appears
> to cover all the files within the release: http://bit.ly/sdkbG5 Can we
> consider this to be a template for improving our own?

No, that NOTICE file is a very bad example to follow.

It has a spurious header:

// ------------------------------------------------------------------
// NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4d of The Apache License,
// Version 2.0, in this case for Apache Abdera
// ------------------------------------------------------------------

and also includes lots of unnecessary stuff, for example

This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'Apache Software
Foundation' (http://jakarta.apache.org/

The NOTICE file is only for *included* software; and only for non-ASF
software because ASF code is included by
the following paragraph, which is supposed to follow the product name header.

This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).

It looks like the NOTICE file was autogenerated by an old version of
Maven plugin (because of the bad header) and not reviewed.

There is a sample NOTICE file linked [1] from ASF Source Header and
Copyright Notice Policy [2]

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-examplenotice
[2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice


> This would also imply that there would be two NOTICE files for
> projects that release binary distributions.  One for the regular
> release, and an augmented one for the binary release?
>
> Interestingly, a quick glance at the other Apache projects beginning
> with A shows that while Ant is in compliance (doesn't ship any
> external jars) and Aries has a lot of strange artifacts that I'm not
> sure how to search, all the other active A projects (4/6) of them are
> out of compliance with this rule regarding binary releases, as I
> understand it. Activemq has lots of jars (jasypt-1.7.jar,
> josql-1.5.jar, stax-1.2.0.jar, etc.) but a barebones NOTICE, archiva
> has 162 jars and only two additional notes in NOTICE, avro ships
> avro-csharp-1.6.1.tar.gz that doesn't even have a NOTICE or LICENSE
> and Axis has lots of jars (saaj.jar, wsdl4j-1.5.1.jar,
> wsdl4j-1.5.1.jar, etc.).  So I hope it's clear why it's frustrating to
> have this rule suddenly pop up when it's apparently not enforced in
> the majority of cases (and then to be asked to go and open JIRAs for
> each of these projects on top of it).
>
> -Jakob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


Mime
View raw message