incubator-jena-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: Pre-release trial run.
Date Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:24:10 GMT
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Leo Simons <> wrote:
> More legal stuff...on reproducing licenses and notices....


Since The Official Release is the source, and the binary releases are
'just for convenience', do we really need to apply all the same
fine-tooth-comb treatment?

> 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