On Jan 13, 2008 5:59 PM, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 13-Jan-08, at 5:25 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > > > Hi > > > > As mentioned by Simon on the release thread for maven-jar-plugin, > > there has been discussions [1] over at Apache Commons regarding the > > apache-jar-resource-bundle [2]. > > > > The issue that people have pointed out there, is that the generated > > NOTICE file includes more stuff than they think it should. They are > > of the opinion that it should *not* contain info about the > > dependencies of a project. Only things that are included in the > > distribution (i.e. the jar-file) should be NOTICEd, they say. > > > > Simon also asked on the legal-discuss list for an expert opinion, > > but received no responses. > > > > The documentation about ASF policy on NOTICE files [3] are scarce, > > and doesn't really say anything in the matter, as far as I can see. > > > > IANAL, so I promised that I would take this matter up on maven-dev. > > > > > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/xyzfglktyk56vkse > > [2] > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/resources/tags/apache-jar-resource-bundle-1.3/ > > [3] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice > > It says that that the notice is used for 3rd party requirements, > what's so unclear about that? > > I wouldn't spend much time on this. Only a lawyer is going to know and > there is always time for us to change anything that's incorrect. > > If you want to look at what is mostly likely correctly look at the > HTTPD notices. Roy Fielding watches over that project and he's the > only non-lawyer at Apache that approaches knowing what a lawyer does > and is the only one here with reliable legal prowess. So anything he > knows would be embodied in the files in the HTTPD project. All the > other jibber jabber by everyone who thinks there are legal problems > generally have no factual basis for their claims and generally don't > know what they are talking about. > > This is a non-issue, we're not going to get into legal trouble for > having more information. And more information is always better so I > would let it be until some lawyer, or Roy, tells us it's categorically > wrong.
The real debate is going on on legal-discuss - I asked specifically about the NOTICE file generated for Commons Fileupload here: http://apache.markmail.org/message/zsgfkulbut3bowqu that has only one response, but the other thread (which has hotted up and has Roy involved) on whether they have to be in svn is here: http://apache.markmail.org/message/gyvzsubx7ieg3swt ...and in that thread Roy seems to be saying that they should Personally seems like a fuss about nothing to me, but I would suggest mavenites jump in and fight their corner before banning the remote-resources-plugin becomes policy. Niall > > -- > > Dennis Lundberg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
