On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:28 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 March 2011 22:02, Tom White <tom.e.wh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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) > > Sorry, it was not clear - I was referring to the source tarball, which > does not contain any 3rd party libraries. > >> and these are the only ones that contain required attributions (as far >> as I can tell). So I believe the NOTICE file is correct. > > It may be for the binary release, but if it is decided to release > source only, it is not correct.
Whirr can't be used without these libraries, so it seems relevant to include references to them in NOTICE. Or are you suggesting a different NOTICE file for each distribution? I've made all the other changes that you and Stefan suggested for the next release candidate. Thanks, Tom > >>> >>> 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
