Hopefully fixed, i.e., I pushed the standard Apache license. That's all we need for the source release.
Gj On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Thanks! Assumed that file was the same for all projects, will investigate > and fix. > > Gj > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:38 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Just to give a bit of a hand >> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/ >> LICENSE#L277-L285 - you don't need to repeat the apache license, if >> there's a NOTICE that needs to get replicated, HOWEVER, the paths to the >> files listed don't exist in this repo so its not really valid. >> >> >> >> On 2017-09-20 16:20, Geertjan Wielenga <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> >> wrote: >> > For the source release, in the top-level folder of incubator-netbeans, a >> > LICENSE and NOTICE are now present: >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-57 >> > >> > Gj >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:27 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > So far, I like the discussion I'm seeing happening on list. The >> feedback >> > > from Ate and Bertrand makes a lot of sense. >> > > >> > > On 2017-09-20 09:38, Geertjan Wielenga <geertjan.wielenga@googlemail. >> com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > Two things I don't understand right now, hope mentors can advise or >> > > someone >> > > > who knows: >> > > > 1. Is there any reason why we would not simply have one NOTICE and >> one >> > > > LICENSE file, i.e., in the top level of incubator-netbeans. In other >> > > words, >> > > > why and under what conditions would we want to have more than that? >> > > >> > > For your source release, yes. However, the NOTICE file as mentioned >> here >> > > should be kept as minimal as possible. E.g. don't include stuff that >> > > doesn't belong. Hence why its typically harder to build the NOTICE >> for the >> > > binaries. >> > > >> > > Likewise, your LICENSE file should only include whats in the actual >> > > release. >> > > >> > > > 2. Since the NOTICE and LICENSE apply to the sources only, what >> about the >> > > > JARs that we're pulling in during the build and that will be part >> of the >> > > > distribution? We're not storing these binaries in the repo since >> the repo >> > > > is for sources only. However, where/how must these be listed and >> what are >> > > > the conditions they must comply with in order to be distributed as >> part >> > > of >> > > > the convenience binary? >> > > >> > > Typically, as mentioned in the thread, for your actual JAR files the >> > > LICENSE/NOTICE goes into META-INF. Assuming you're not importing any >> other >> > > third party code, then using the standard ASF LICENSE/NOTICE in your >> JARs >> > > is perfectly sufficient. However, if you create a binary distribution >> > > (e.g. tarball) then that tarball should include a LICENSE and NOTICE >> that >> > > represents whats in that tarball. >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > >> > > > Gj >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < >> > > bdelacre...@apache.org >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Jan Lahoda <lah...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > > > > ...if I understand it correctly, if a ('convenience') binary is >> > > created >> > > > > > for a subset of sources, then it should contain notices only >> for that >> > > > > > subset, right?... >> > > > > >> > > > > Ideally yes. >> > > > > >> > > > > Considering that binaries are not Apache releases, however, >> that's not >> > > > > as important as in source releases where having a minimal NOTICE >> is a >> > > > > strong requirement. >> > > > > >> > > > > -Bertrand >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
