On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 March 2011 16:43, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 2011-03-18, sebb wrote: >> >>> But the main issue is that the binary distribution contains lots of >>> 3rd party products which are not mentioned in either the NOTICE file >>> or the LICENSE file. >> >> They likely are supposed to be in the - unfortunately empty - license >> files inside the lib directory. >> >>> Whether it requires attribution or not, 3rd party product licenses >>> must be recorded in the LICENSE file.
Right, we definitely need to fix this, per http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license. >> >>> The standard method is to include the text in the file, but it may be >>> allowable to just include a pointer to the license elsewhere in the >>> distribution. >> >> This pointer is missing, you are correct. >> >>> I think these issues are sufficient to block the release. >> >> Of the binary "convenience build". If the whirr project wanted to >> release the source tarball alone, the problems you have found wouldn't >> apply. The source tarball looks good to me. > > The NOTICE file includes attributions for two products that are not present. > AIUI it's important that NOTICE only contains *required* attributions > because the NOTICEs have to passed on to downstream users. Both products are present (jsr250-api-1.0.jar and jersey-core-1.4.jar) and these are the only ones that contain required attributions (as far as I can tell). So I believe the NOTICE file is correct. > > The ------------ divider lines should be removed (not a blocker) and > the year should be updated. > > Also, the lib directory is full of licence files for products that are > not present. > It's not necessary for everything in SVN to be in the source archive, > though everything in the source archive must be in SVN (or be > derivable directly from it) > This is confusing. It looks like the old LICENSE files in lib were mistakenly not removed when the JAR versions were updated (e.g. guava-r06-LICENSE.txt -> guava-r08-LICENSE.txt) or removed since the last release. I agree this is confusing and they should be removed. Thanks for taking the time to check the release candidate. Cheers, Tom > >> Stefan >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
