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: Legal files and maven automation
Date Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:27:16 GMT
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:09 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  On Mar 10, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

>  > Two thoughts:
>  >
>  > 1) How is the end-year of the copyright done? AIUI, that should be the
>  > year of last edit and not the year in which it is built. So if I build
>  > something that hasn't been touched in a year, it should still have
>  > last year's year on it.
>  I think it is the current year.  I could argue that this is only
>  relevant for releases, at which time the version in the pom has
>  changed, and the pom is included in the artifacts, therefore
>  something has changed, but that argument is a bit weak.  Personally I
>  think having a copyright date range from project inception to now is
>  better than having definitely out-of-date NOTICE files included in
>  most or all artifacts, which is positively assured if this process is
>  done by hand.
>  Is this a blocker?

Not sure.  Sam/others?

I'm never sure if this is pedantry or critical.

>  > 2) Add a macro language for the license/notice so it can pull things
>  > in from the transitives when added in. It should also fail when it
>  > can't find said license information. At least for the LICENSE part as
>  > that applies to all licenses etc. I'm not sure we have NOTICEs in the
>  > Maven repository.
>  I thought the whole point of the discussion up to now on what goes in
>  LICENSE and NOTICE files is that they definitely apply to ONLY what
>  is actually IN the artifact and not any of its dependencies or what
>  might be required to actually use the artifact in any meaningful
>  way.  Given that I said that rolling up LICENSE and NOTICE files for
>  artifacts that assemble and contain other artifacts such as wars and
>  ears is out of scope for this proposal, I'm very confused about what
>  you might be suggesting.  Could you please clarify how this macro
>  language would apply to this proposal?

Let's say I include a few of the jars in my distribution, but not all.
Then I'll need to add some of the LICENSE files and not other. It'd be
nice to just put in:


That way if I update to Lang 8.0 and it's AL 3.0; then the license
gets auto updated.

>  I'd really prefer to discuss the actual possibility of using exactly
>  what I am proposing in this thread on legal-discuss and discuss
>  possible enhancements and improvements elsewhere.  There is a
>  gigantic tendency on legal discuss to have infinitely long
>  discussions with no conclusion, but I would like to know if there are
>  actual problems with using this actual resource bundle right now in
>  projects I would like to release this week.
>  Could we restrict all discussion of possible future enhancements to
>  the maven-dev list?

Will do. Answering your question above as I'm not on maven-dev - if
it's worth following up, please cc me.


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