lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Risden <>
Subject Re: What should go into license/ folders? (important)
Date Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:19:09 GMT

Based on reading the above, I think we need to have licenses and notices
for everything that ends up in the distribution unless they are downloaded

So based on that I agree with your 3 answers.

Kevin Risden

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 8:34 AM Dawid Weiss <> wrote:

> I'm porting jar checksums to gradle and it's a bit like trying to
> reconstruct this from scratch:
> We have dangling files, references to JARs no longer used... It's a mess.
> I'll clean it up but I need to know the following so that its consistent:
> 1) Do we include checksums and licenses of JARs that are only part of
> the build? For example, solr-ref-guide has a number of esoteric
> dependencies that are not really part of the "distribution".
> 2) Do we include checksums and licenses of JARs that are only used in
> tests? JUnit, mocks, etc.
> 3) Should Solr include all licenses (and checksums) of Lucene
> dependencies or can we exclude them and only focus on Solr's own
> dependencies? Lucene dependencies are still verified and have licenses
> but only under lucene/licenses (not in both projects).
> My picks are:
> 1) no, we don't include non-code (build-only) dependencies under licenses/.
> 2) yes, we include checksums of test JARs (so that we can be sure
> builds are running the same stuff on different machines),
> 3) no, Solr's licenses/ folder should only include Solr's own
> dependencies. Lucene license files (and possibly JAR checksums) can be
> added to Solr distribution package but don't have to be stored/
> versioned/ verified twice.
> Dawid
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message