On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > As Robert can no doubt attest, we often scramble to make sure i's are dotted > and t's are crossed when it comes to filling out LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt > right before releases, thereby burdening the RM with way too much work in > validating what dependency has which license. Thus, we've been working to > resolve this. > > In prep for the landing of LUCENE-2952 and to make life easier on release > managers going forward, we've adopted the following conventions for dealing > with licenses: > > 1. For every dependency (i.e. jar file), there needs to be a corresponding > file-LICENSE-<LICENSE_TYPE>.txt file, as in: foo-2.3.1.jar has the > corresponding foo-LICENSE-BSD.txt file (assuming foo is BSD licensed) in the > same directory as the jar file. > > 2. _IF_ the license requires a NOTICE entry, then there must be a file of > the name file-NOTICE.txt, as in foo-NOTICE.txt. > > Failing to meet either one will break the build once L-2952 is committed > (which should be soon for trunk and will be backported to 3.2). > > Consider yourself notified.
+1 I think we can all agree, we want our licensing to be "rock-solid" and we should strive to raise the standards here for our project. Its actually more important than if our code even compiles. Automated checks go a long way, thank you Grant for working on this, because we have a lot of third-party dependencies and its difficult to verify that everything is in proper order. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
