David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
* jars without accompanying licenses.
* jar filenames not following our naming convention.
Sorry, Lazy, I will sort that out today.
Done.
Thanks, that is quite an effort i know.
A couple of jars are still without version numbers as I can't find what
version they are.
Which makes it obvious why we need such metadata about the jars.
Oh well, next time we update them, we can assign better filenames.
Another topic for later:
Should we be keeping better track of our supporting jars
like Cocoon does: http://cocoon.apache.org/2.1/installing/jars.html
The page is generated from xml and the build system, verifies that
each jar has an entry in the table.
+1
Another aspect to this licensing job is to review each license
to see if there are any other conditions that they specify, such
as asking for attribution in the NOTICE.txt at our top-level.
All seems okay.
Thank you for checking
However, activation.jar is a worry.
http://maven.apache.org/reference/standard-sun-jar-names.html
We need to tell people to download that separately.
Sounds like the beginning of the user documentation for our
Eclipse plugin.
I wondered about this jar, so I did a search and found it in an ASF
repo, somewhere in Jakarta. I have to admit I had just assumed that they
had verified the license.
The above link does seem to indicate it cannot be included. I'm busy now
till next week, I will look into this further next week.
Ross
