On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:12 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Technically... its bad for a module to need to access bits from ../
(or ../../ or ../../../../../../). The proper way to do this would
be to add them to a new license module, then have each module
depend on it, using dependency plugin to download unpack and then
antrun to copy into place.
Still easier to have LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt local to the
module. Most of them will be the same, so not much work to
maintain... a few will need to be customized to keep us legal.
If we want to have a global... then we gotta write up some custom
plugin to handle that automatically for us.
I'd be proposing that the LICENSE and NOTICE files be local to the
module. That's what we currently have.
The "distribution" license and notice files are in modules/scripts/
src/resources. They are currently built by hand. I'm assuming that
they will continue to be built by hand. Automatically generating the
license/module information would be great (I'm just a little doubtful
that it's going to happen...) You have to include license/notice info
for all of our generated modules -- that seems doable. However, the
harder part is compiling license/notice information for dependencies
that are loaded into our repository. We'd need to capture that
information as meta-data, then accumulate during the assembly.
We need to be more rigorous in maintaining our LICENSE and NOTICE
information. IMO, identifying and compiling the information is the
hard part, not getting them into the necessary format...
--kevan
--jason
On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:04 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 18, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:53 AM, John Sisson wrote:
Whilst testing the geronimo eclipse plugin, eclipse prompted me
to acknowledge the Sun license at http://developers.sun.com/
license/berkeley_license.html when caching the j2ee schema
files (e.g. http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee/ejb-jar_2_1.xsd ).
This made me wonder whether this license has been included for
Geronimo (since we redistribute schema files) and it appears
the LICENSE.txt file in 1.1 doesn't contain it.
I'll add a JIRA for 1.1.1 if there aren't any objections.
Can anyone think of any other licenses or notices we may have
overlooked?
Yes. Would appreciate your thoughts on the following:
1) Fix LICENSE and NOTICE files for branches/1.1/modules/util
(currently they are only Bouncy Castle -- I believe that we have
ASL code in there, also).
I think we should do it
2) Do we need to add Bouncy Castle to our "global" LICENSE and
NOTICE files (i.e. branches/1.1/modules/scripts/src/
resources/) ? I think yes.
3) Insure NOTICE files are included in our jar files (currently
only LICENSE files are there)
4) Do we need to add LICENSE/NOTICE files in our generated CARs?
5) Can the "global" LICENSE and NOTICE files be used in all our
generated artifacts (distributions, jars, cars)? Or do we need
global files and specific license/notice files for generated
module jars and car files?
--kevan
2-4 should be run by legal, no?
To support #5, I hope we don't need some kind of maven magic.
I think 1,2,3 are must do's. I think we can ignore 4. There are
some CAR "files" in ibiblio -- http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/
geronimo/cars/ However, I'm not sure why they are there... They
are all "1.0" and dated December 22nd. Should we have them
removed? To my knowledge, we don't build or distribute CAR files
in 1.1 (we do have ".car" directories in our repository, but IMO
that's no different from any other directory name we might have...)
Regarding 5, I think the right thing to do is have a global
LICENSE and NOTICE file in the base of our distributions. We
currently have this. Each of our jar files should have LICENSE and
NOTICE files specific to each jar. I don't think that this is hard
to do. Am I wrong? They all need standard ASL license and notice
files. util needs to include bouncy castle info. Are there other
geronimo generated jars with any licensing requirements beyond ASL 2?
--kevan
