Mailing-List: contact jena-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jena-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of andy.seaborne.apache@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.83.47 as permitted sender)
Sender: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne.apache@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EDF3DA9.9020402@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:19:21 +0000
From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jena-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Pre-release trial run.
References: <4ED65237.1040407@apache.org> <4ED77CFD.2090308@apache.org>
 <4ED8A964.9010701@apache.org> <4ED8C884.2090108@epimorphics.com>
 <4ED8E0A5.2000108@apache.org> <4EDBAB43.9020201@apache.org>
 <CAJjdaOE_0wBP=WK2zmztOcQQV_q0k5njxMSxJFgS1qsiw91twA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjdaOF=LA3i860p92TJQ+ojgNZNKmX-Aaeq=-KQ-Jw0V=tk_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALhtWkdNp4m81pMoewYwTEa0oyR2dJ0QaP7YLtC_X0sRLfy3xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjdaOGS1uNHXGrLH8tca__-2NsM6iCwo3c1tU4BmLWCbHOchw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJjdaOGS1uNHXGrLH8tca__-2NsM6iCwo3c1tU4BmLWCbHOchw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 07/12/11 08:33, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Benson Margulies<bimargulies@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Leo Simons<mail@leosimons.com>  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?
>
> Of course! A lot of open source licensing is about "things you have to
> do when you (re)distribute".
>
> In a binary release with libraries inside, apache is (re)distributing
> those libraries, so those license terms kick in, and we simply have to
> follow them. And a lot of the obligation that comes with those
> licenses is about reproducing licenses and notices.
>
> The only alternative is not to redistribute those libraries, which
> puts the burden of figuring out the legal mess on the user (and so
> makes the binary "less convenient" for them!).
>
> Finally, do remember that _normally_ you would update the binary
> release LICENSE and NOTICE when you updated its build scripts to
> include another dependency, so this painful legal cleanup/scrubbing
> should really be a once-only event.

I'm more than happy to try to get the details right - I'm not aiming to 
merely meet the minimum necessary requirements but to do the "right 
thing" now.  We're learning.

Jena has historically shipped with dependencies, originally (10 years 
ago) because that was the only practical way to get the stuff to the 
users.  The simple act of putting the right versions of the software 
into the users hands was been quite important. Getting the classpath set 
correctly is another matter ...

Nowadays, because public maven, or even maven, isn't for everyone, it's 
still useful to deliver the bundle.  I guess all of us use maven (or 
etc) dependency management but it's a real barrier for people starting 
out with Java, semantic web all at the same time, and not just students 
doing projects.  Ditto people who use the command line tools.

So I appreciate the fine tooth combing.  At the moment I'm on the 
receiving end of formal public comments on specs as SPARQL goes through 
the later stages of W3C process, and the comments there are not 
necessarily as supportive as here.

	Andy