Yes, Emmanuel. And that's exactly what assemble.gradle enforces. 2015-10-16 16:51 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]>:
> Le 16/10/15 16:43, Paul King a écrit : > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Cédric Champeau > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Such a list was written for the proposal: > >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal > >> > >> Since then we have made a great effort towards generating different > LICENSE > >> files depending on the artifacts we produce. Everything can be found in > the > >> license directory: > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/tree/master/licenses > >> > >> And assembling the licenses depending on the artifacts is done here: > >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/blob/master/gradle/assemble.gradle > >> > >> I am kind of reluctant to write the list explicitly where we have tools > to > >> check everything (Rat plugin, license report): the list could become > >> obsolete very easily without us noticing. > > Agreed. Our source dependency license/notice info is already in the > > source release. Our runtime dependency license/notice info is already > > in the respective jars/zips. RAT does a check on our source files. And > > now the gradle license report plugin does a cross-check on what we > > already know from the license files. I believe we are well and truly > > covered. > > To be clear : > - the source packages must contain the N&L files listing all the > contained depeencies (and teh required N&L for those dependencies- > - the binary packages that are distributed must also contain the same > things > - the dependencies used to build Groovy are not part of what must be > listed (although it might be cool to do so), unless they generates some > code or documentation (typically what antlr does) > > The rational being that anyone who want to download, and embed groovy in > their own product must be aware of those dependencies. If some of them > are optional, then it should be clearly stated somewhere (and solhere > means N&L). > > Keep in mind that many companies are very picky about those things. > > Anyway, I think it's already correctly covered, as of today. > > Thanks! > >
