incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ali Lown <...@lown.me.uk>
Subject Re: A request for feedback on LICENSE and NOTICE (and others) prior to RC4
Date Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:05:53 GMT
So, since build.xml has all the third-party components listed in the
get-third-party-X functions (at the bottom-ish of the file) we can
conclude:

I should add to the repository: NOTICE.src, NOTICE.bin, LICENSE.src, LICENSE.bin
Then, during release-src, NOTICE.src and LICENSE.src get pulled in as
NOTICE and LICENSE
(Similarly for release-bin).

With:
NOTICE.src + LICENSE.src containing all the packages listed in
get-third-party-codegen and get-third-party-test
and
NOTICE.bin + LICENSE.bin containing all the packages listed in
get-third-party-runtime

Does that make sense?

Also, for NOTICE.x, should every package [as detailed above] get
mentioned, or should only packages whose license explicitly requires a
notice, get put in there?

Thanks.
Ali

On 18/08/2013, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first off, here are soem links:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Ali Lown <ali@lown.me.uk> wrote:
>> - Moved all third-party things to be downloaded automatically during
>> build - one of the reasons for an IPMC -1. There are now no jars in
>> the src releases. [This makes it much smaller!]
>> - Fixed assorted licensing (notably src/python/api) and other files to
>> use the correct "Licensed to the ASF under contributor license
>> agreements" header. - another of the IPMC -1's
>> - Removed some more 'Copyright Google 200x' messages that were still
>> floating around
>> - Added SimpleJSON and Protobuf licenses to LICENSE.
>>
>> The other bit of feedback from the incubator vote was regarding
>> LICENSE/NOTICE not seeming to be correct.
>> I am unclear what should be being put in either/both now. (Especially
>> since the third-party items are downloaded rather than being
>> distributed by us).
>> I also saw it mentioned that sometimes LICENSE/NOTICE are different
>> for the source release, than for the binary release - could you
>> clarify if that is going to apply to this tree.
>
> OK, please see this:
> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>
> To my understanding you should put these things into the NOTICE file
> which you are using. If you for example use software from Library $x, then
> you should include them in the notice file. Think on import statements or
> lets
> say some plugins.
>
> If you are only using a library file in the binary artifact, then you
> should only
> put a NOTICE there. For example a runtime dependency.
>
> Same goes to LICENSE.
>
> I am not an expert in that matter, but i think the links should
> reflect what i wrote here.
>
>>
>> Could you look over the new tree at the above url, and provide some
>> information on what should be going in LICENSE/NOTICE now.
>> [This is not a request for feedback on the release, rather just some
>> pointers on how to tidy up the remaining licensing problems before
>> making rc4].
>
> If you would make a source package from that, I would expect to find
> usage of DOM4J, JDOM and JODA. I would not expect to find some code
> relating to JXYZ.
>
> Maybe its easy to think: src-package LICENSE/NOTICE contains what you
> need to compile.
> bin-package LICENSE/NOTICE contains what you need to run.
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>
>> Thanks.
>> Ali
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
>

Mime
View raw message