On 13-Jan-08, at 8:01 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
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.
It's not going to become ASF policy because no one but a PMC sets
policy for their project.
We vote on a tag which produces the binaries and in the process of the
build the notice file is generated.
I appreciate your concern, but worst case scenario is that the
generate file goes on the tag as well. That's a tweak to the plugin if
derived resources are not legally binding. Not a big deal. Roy did not
say anything about banning anything. Roy just expects people to try
and do things right and correct them if they are not.
I glanced the thread and what it amounts to is an effort in herding
cats. That's just what it's like here. We definitely don't need more
policy, as without a backing tool to do it correctly then no one is
ever going to do it right. If our tool is wrong then we can fix it. I
can tell you from experience that knowledge about doing releases being
passed on from release manager to release manager correctly over the
years approaches zero. Just look at the discussion in that thread.
The only chance of it being done correctly over time is to embody the
policy in the tool that performs correctly, and anything can be
corrected.
I mailed Roy to talk to him so I will have him tell me what is
correct, I will explain what our tools do. He can tell me where our
tool is hosed and then we can fix it.
Niall
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
be omnipotent for a while.
-- Jakob Burckhardt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
