Hi,
Ok, then, you got me ;-)
I tried to setup what I had in mind:
* I patched the Felix parent pom (see FELIX-1747) attachement
* I created a modified Web Console project with adapted
license and notice files
* To ease creating the distros I created assembly descriptors
referred to by the parent pom.
This all generates correct LICENSE and NOTICE files and as side effect a
DEPENDENCIES file, which list what the project is depending on.
For details see FELIX-1747 [1].
There might still be room for improvement but I think this is a
promising first step.
WDYT ?
Regards
Felix
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-1747
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
> On 10/12/09 15:46, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Richard S. Hall schrieb:
>>
>>> On 10/12/09 15:17, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S.
>>>> Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ...reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my
>>>>> point
>>>>> of view the overall issue to decide is:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Two-file approach, one for legal requirements and one for
>>>>> "courtesy".
>>>>> 2. One-file approach for both.
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer (2) if this is possible....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> See also http://markmail.org/message/cxwtnuys65c7hs2y - we had a
>>>> similar discussion in Sling a while ago, and the way I read it Roy
>>>> clearly states that 1) is the way to go - NOTICE should only be used
>>>> for *required* attribution notices.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice also says "the
>>>> remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for *required* third-party
>>>> notices" (my emphasis).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Again, if that is the case that we are required to do it that way, then
>>> we can end the discussion. However, it is not clear what the additional
>>> burden it places other than to carry around a longer NOTICE file.
>>>
>> To the contrary, the NOTICE file will become considerably smaller since
>> it only contains a fraction of what's in there right now.
>>
>> The additional burden is in deciding whether to include the 3rd party
>> inclusion in the NOTICE file or not and adding it there.
>>
>>
>>> Oh well. Hoops. Jump.
>>>
>>> I guess we all better start investigating which of our dependencies have
>>> legal requirements.
>>>
>> I agree that this is a tedious job, but it is a required one -- in so
>> far as I understand the processes.
>>
>>
>>> So, Felix, since you appear to be the expert here :-), perhaps you can
>>> help us take the next steps down this road.
>>>
>> Well, I would definitely not call me an expert here; I just have had my
>> fingers clapped (see above mail reference) ;-)
>>
>> I would think along these lines: We use your proposed template as the
>> basis for future README files. In the NOTICE file we have the required
>> four lines (as proposed by Guillaume we might use the Remote Resources
>> plugin for this) plus the required attributions only.
>>
>
> So, perhaps someone can help us get set up using the plugin and see that
> it will work for us.
>
>> In the README files we list everything we agree to:
>>
>> * Project name
>> * Copyright and license reference
>> * All 3rd party stuff included in the binary/source releases
>> * 3rd party stuff we depend on (like the OSGi API for example)
>> * Links to issue tracking, documentation, mailing lists
>> * ....
>>
>> This is pretty much free format. And we might even declare the presence
>> of the README file a must in any distributable.
>>
>
> I am not looking for more crap^H^H^H^Hinformation to put in the
> README...minimal is best IMO.
>
> -> richard
>
>> The NOTICE file will turn out to be much smaller -- mostly only
>> containing the minimal four lines.
>>
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>
>>
>>> -> richard
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Bertrand (from the peanuts gallery)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
