See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PORTALS-12 and
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PORTALS-13
portlet 2.0:
I removed the ibm copyrights from the source files and the license.txt
file and added the copyright notice to the NOTICE file. I added the
portals-pom as parent and used the maven-remote-resources plugin to
generate the LICENSE and NOTICE files. I also added the LICENSE and
NOTICE files to the root of the svn source.
portlet 1.0:
I changed the license header from apache 1.1 to the current header,
allowing its release post- march-2004 :-). I also added the portals-
pom as parent and used the maven-remote-resources plugin to generate
the requred LICENSE and NOTICE files, and added these at the root of
svn source.
Other stuff I think needs to happen:
1. remove the portlet.xml.txt files unless they serve some actual
purpose.
2. in 2.0, remove the statement that the spec is provisional found in
every file
3. remove the portal-site src and pom completely, use the maven
generated site instead for each spec level.
4. make the svn tree look like:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/portals/portlet-spec
+tags
\trunk
+portlet-api-1.0
\portlet-api-2.0
Somewhat to my surprise we've found this structure to work fine with
the geronimo specs and the release plugin.
5. use the felix bundle plugin to insert osgi metadata
6. remove just about everything from the poms and use the release
profile instead
7. make the portals-pom specify use of m-r-r-plugin always.
8 update portals-pom to use apache 6 pom as soon as it's available.
9. (maybe) maybe I'm biased :-) but I prefer to use geronimo servlet
specs because I know a bit about their quality. I'd rather build
against the geronimo servlet 2.5 spec even though it's uplevel for
what's needed than the 2.3 and 2.4 servlet specs that I don't know
much about.
If everyone agrees these are good changes I think I could find the
time to do them soon. I'd also be happy if someone else does them :-)
thanks
david jencks
On May 6, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
My manager thinks it's OK for me, as an IBM employee, to update the
sources to conform with apache standards, I will try to get to it
today or tomorrow.
Cool!
Thanks for helping out with this David.
Regards,
Ate
thanks
david jencks
On May 4, 2009, at 4:35 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Hi Ate,
I haven't heard back from my manager yet, I pinged him again. I
think it's ok to add the apache license header for now, but it
would definitely be better to get it fixed, especially as the
existing license.txt file does not contain a license at all.
thanks
david jencks
On May 4, 2009, at 3:26 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
On Apr 18, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
<snip/>
In addition, there is this license.txt within the source tree
containing the following:
� Copyright IBM Corp. 2006, 2007
All rights reserved.
Should that file remain or maybe should we move that statement
to our NOTICE.txt instead?
Furthermore, every portlet-api-2.0 source file also contains
the "Copyright 2006 IBM Corporation." in the header.
IIUC the recommended route is to move these copyright notices to
the NOTICE file. However someone from IBM has to do it. I'm
from IBM but right now I wouldn't be comfortable removing them
without input from at least one author or IBM legal. I'll ask
my boss and see what happens.
David Jencks, do you have any feedback on this issue?
I'd like to move forward with this proposal ASAP but its a little
unclear to me how we can and/or are allowed to proceed now.
I would think at least we are allowed to *add* the ASF licence
header to the sources while (for now) retaining the the IBM
copyright notices therein.
And the license.txt file I would think should be fine to be
removed when we move the content to our own NOTICE file.
The remaining question for me is, should we only provide the
standard ASF LICENSE file, or should that in addition *also*
contain the content of the original IBM license.txt?
Thanks,
Ate
Note that none of such copyright statements are found in the
portlet-api-1.0 source, not even from SUN.
On the other hand, the portlet-api-1.0 sources do have the ASF
1.1 license header, not the 2.0 license header.
I'm not too familiar with what is required when a new release
is put out, but I think if we would do this, those need to be
replaced with ASF 2.0 license headers now, right?
yes, and I think we can do that without any legal arguments from
anyone.
thanks
david jencks
Regards,
Ate
Carsten
