Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Sure :)
Start placing license next to the jars. This enables usBut does it make any sense?
- to check which licenses are missing
- to write tools to check this
- to easily update a license of a jar if the license changes
I don't see it. legal/ was much more elegant - and user friendly.
Was it? It seems that it is more user friendly but I think it's not. How do you know, which libraries we have are covered by licenses in the legal/ directory
I had not said anything about dev-friendly :-)
and which library is coverd by which file?
E.g. if you have an excalibur.*.jar or a commons-*.jar, how can
you see that this is covered by the LICENSE.Avalon resp.
the for jakarta commons?
I would expect LICENSE.excalibur and LICENSE.commons files to be in legal/
Alternatively, jars should be named avalon-excalibur-*; so there would be no place for ambiguity, one way or another.
Even worse with the next releases of Apache projects, they use
the new 2.0 license, so in the case of Avalon you have subprojects
that have been released with the old and others that have been
released with the new one. THen you need a way to tell which
library uses what license.
Well, this is transient issue. But I'd expect all excalibur-* libraries to be re-released with license v2 more or less simulteneously.
There was the strong feeling in the pmc list days ago that we
(and we had strong feelings against it as well)
need a tool to check if every lib in our cvs is covered
by a license. With the current structure, this is impossible.
Possible, if license file starts with (LICENSE.excalibur) or ends with (excalibur.LICENSE) beginning of the JAR file name (excalibur-bla-bla-bla).
So, we need one license file per library and the easiest way
is to give it the same name as the library itself. So, checking
is easy.
One license per project is more appropriate, and checking is still possible.
And we saw (with JISP, but also with the ASF projects changing
to 2.0) that licenses for a project change. I bet that usually
we only update the jar file but never touch the license that
our stored somewhere else. WIth this approach, you have at
least to rename the license and this should help in keeping
the license upto date.
But from the users POV, licenses are all spread across module - instead of one (convinient) location.
This has discussed a while ago I think on the committers list (or somewhere else) and the output was that each jar should have the license directly next to the jar.
I mentioned this days ago on the PMC list and noone disagreed,
so... :)
Oops. Did I miss my chance?
Ok, I really thing that we need a license file per lib. Otherwhise tracking is impossible. And giving this file the same name as the jar (including version) makes imho sense as well.
If these are stored in the /legal directly or right next to
the jars is imho not so important.
Well, it's really not so important; I guess it's matter of taste.
Vadim
