incubator-jena-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Seaborne <>
Subject Re: Pre-release trial run.
Date Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:15:03 GMT
Oh beep.  We really should have been doing this in the pre-Apache releases.

I'll do that for the various modules (that means in practice Jena and 
ARQ, then roll through to apache-jena).


On 07/12/11 00:03, Leo Simons wrote:
> More legal stuff...on reproducing licenses and notices....
> cheers,
> Leo
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Leo Simons<>  wrote:
>> ZOMG so many jars!
>> ------------------
> ...
>> apache-jena-2.7.0-incubator.tar.gz
> ...
> I wonder how I forgot to look at this yesterday. Like I went over for
> the LARQ example, for all the third party stuff (code and/or jars)
> that are included in a distribution, their license and notice data
> needs to be carried forward. For example, BSD/MIT/etc LICENSES for
> included jars have to go into an aggregated LICENSE file, and
> statements in NOTICE files for ALv2 jars need to go into the
> distribution NOTICE.
> Concretely, for this binary tarball,
> * commons-codec NOTICE says
>          src/test/org/apache/commons/codec/language/
> contains
>          test data from
>          Copyright (C) 2002 Kevin Atkinson ( Verbatim copying
>          and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium,
>          provided this notice is preserved.
>    ...since the jar doesn't contain that test source that seems ok and
> we do not carry
>    the NOTICE forward.
> * httpclient says
>          This project contains annotations derived from JCIP-ANNOTATIONS
>          Copyright (c) 2005 Brian Goetz and Tim Peierls. See
> that statement needs to go in NOTICE.
> * icu4j seems BSD-licensed so its license should go into LICENSE
> * slf4j seems MIT-licensed so its license should go into LICENSE
> * wstx-asl contains a weird NOTICE file. I don't think anything in there
>    needs to be carried forward since these don't look like legal
> statements. But, it
>    is most likely simpler and safer just to copy the text it supplies verbatim.
> * depending on where the xercesImpl binary came from, the relevant NOTICE data
>    needs to be carried forward, which probably is
>        Portions of this software were originally based on the following:
>          - software copyright (c) 1999, IBM Corporation.,
>          - software copyright (c) 1999, Sun Microsystems.,
>          - voluntary contributions made by Paul Eng on behalf of the
>            Apache Software Foundation that were originally developed at
> iClick, Inc.,
>            software copyright (c) 1999.
>    ...but you'll need to check the distro that you got the jar file from.
> I'm trying to remember how I handled this kind of thing before. Looks
> like the last time I actually release managed an apache release was in
> 2007, and what we did then was simply not to ship 3rd party jars at
> all (not the most user friendly). I guess it's easy enough to just
> author the distribution NOTICE and LICENSE by hand, since these
> dependencies don't change all that frequently, and that seems to be
> what is (still) common practice.
> Like I said, I did not check the other binary releases, but they need
> to be checked for this too.

View raw message