www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: LICENSE and NOTICE files and SVN
Date Thu, 20 Dec 2007 05:07:20 GMT
On Dec 19, 2007 5:01 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 3:33 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:37 AM, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> There is a discussion going on at present in Incubator (and Commons)
> >> regarding the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
> >>
> >> Everyone accepts that these files need to be present in release
> >> artefacts, but there is no such consensus as to whether the files
> >> need
> >> to be in SVN, and if so, where should they be in the tree when a
> >> project consists of multiple sub-trees such as UIMA and Commons.
> >
> > If they're not in svn, then how can the release be built from
> > source? I must be missing something fundamental.
> Well one easy way is if you use the maven-remote-resources plugin to
> get them into your artifacts.  This uses a specified resource bundle
> from a maven  repo to generate or just include these files.  Since
> several apache projects are using this (CXF, ApacheDS and I think
> Maven among others) I would say that including the files in svn must
> not be required.  The possibility of writing something like this
> plugin indicates to me that a policy that these files must be in the
> projects' svn is at best misguided.

I'll admit to not knowing how the remote-resources-plugin can possibly
be good enough.

Currently all our pom.xmls claim that our software is covered by the
following in the asf parent pom:

      <name>The Apache Software License, Version 2.0</name>

Least I think that's how it's working - I looked at Maven's pom and
didn't see a license section.

There are two problems here.

1) Where is the NOTICE file?
2) If we make LICENSEs automatic, will people edit their LICENSE when
other code is added [
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE ]?

The latter is less of an issue in Java I suspect - it's much more
likely dependencies will be jars declared in the pom, than go into the

> > But if the issue is that some folks think that the NOTICE and
> > LICENSE files must occur multiple times in multiple places in the
> > source tree, that sounds absurd. The only time the NOTICE and
> > LICENSE files have any real meaning is in distribution artifacts.
> > And we (the PMC responsible) should examine the distribution
> > artifacts themselves to verify that the files are correct.

There's no thinking that they should appear in multiple places in the
source tree. The only thought is that when you check out the code from
svn, there should be a clear statement of what the license is on the
code. It shouldn't be hidden behind some autogenerating magic, or
resource file that is sitting somewhere else (or parent pom somewhere
in the stratosphere).

ie) I think there should be a LICENSE and NOTICE file at each svn co node.

You shouldn't have to build a distribution to figure out the license
type of an svn checkout.


DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message