On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > Two thoughts:
> >
> > 1) How is the end-year of the copyright done? AIUI, that should be the
> > year of last edit and not the year in which it is built. So if I build
> > something that hasn't been touched in a year, it should still have
> > last year's year on it.
>
> I think it is the current year. I could argue that this is only
> relevant for releases, at which time the version in the pom has
> changed, and the pom is included in the artifacts, therefore
> something has changed, but that argument is a bit weak. Personally I
> think having a copyright date range from project inception to now is
> better than having definitely out-of-date NOTICE files included in
> most or all artifacts, which is positively assured if this process is
> done by hand.
>
> Is this a blocker?
Not sure. Sam/others?
I'm never sure if this is pedantry or critical.
> > 2) Add a macro language for the license/notice so it can pull things
> > in from the transitives when added in. It should also fail when it
> > can't find said license information. At least for the LICENSE part as
> > that applies to all licenses etc. I'm not sure we have NOTICEs in the
> > Maven repository.
>
> I thought the whole point of the discussion up to now on what goes in
> LICENSE and NOTICE files is that they definitely apply to ONLY what
> is actually IN the artifact and not any of its dependencies or what
> might be required to actually use the artifact in any meaningful
> way. Given that I said that rolling up LICENSE and NOTICE files for
> artifacts that assemble and contain other artifacts such as wars and
> ears is out of scope for this proposal, I'm very confused about what
> you might be suggesting. Could you please clarify how this macro
> language would apply to this proposal?
Let's say I include a few of the jars in my distribution, but not all.
Then I'll need to add some of the LICENSE files and not other. It'd be
nice to just put in:
%{org.commons.apache/lang/LICENSE}
That way if I update to Lang 8.0 and it's AL 3.0; then the license
gets auto updated.
> I'd really prefer to discuss the actual possibility of using exactly
> what I am proposing in this thread on legal-discuss and discuss
> possible enhancements and improvements elsewhere. There is a
> gigantic tendency on legal discuss to have infinitely long
> discussions with no conclusion, but I would like to know if there are
> actual problems with using this actual resource bundle right now in
> projects I would like to release this week.
>
> Could we restrict all discussion of possible future enhancements to
> the maven-dev list?
Will do. Answering your question above as I'm not on maven-dev - if
it's worth following up, please cc me.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
