Hi David,
First of all, thanks again for helping out on this!
I have some inline comments below.
Regards,
Ate
David Jencks wrote:
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.
+1, I don't see any purpose at all.
It is just an example portlet.xml which I think accidentally landed in the
source tree.
2. in 2.0, remove the statement that the spec is provisional found in
every file
+1
3. remove the portal-site src and pom completely, use the maven
generated site instead for each spec level.
We have some other plans about site management for all of portals by moving that out of the main release cycle svn trees for each project
and instead maintain it separately (without trunk/tags folders) based off /portals/site, with a master portals-site pom and sub projects
inherit from it (but not necessarily as parent pom modules as maven-site plugin is too broken to deal with that correctly).
This does pose a problem for code based generated docs like reports and javadoc, but I think we can and should simply check those in and
integrate them manually in the corresponding (sub) project site xdocs.
Anyway, I'll write a formal proposal/vote email for doing this for all Portals
projects shortly, and then in more detail.
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
+1
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
+0, we already do this for portlet-api-2.0 within the pom itself, not sure if
more is needed here.
I guess Carsten might have some additional ideas about this.
6. remove just about everything from the poms and use the release
profile instead
+1, we're about to provide a vote on an updated portals-pom-1.1 which will use
apache 6 pom
7. make the portals-pom specify use of m-r-r-plugin always.
You mean maven-remote-resources-plugin, right?
Probably +1, haven't reviewed in detail what possible side-effects that could
have though.
8 update portals-pom to use apache 6 pom as soon as it's available.
See above, and FYI: apache 6 pom is already released and 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.
-1
Not all end users are using a servlet 2.5 container yet, and adding a dependency on that could cause problems if they inadvertently then
would use features from that not supported in their runtime environment.
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 :-)
Whoever gets there first :)
You're very welcome to help out further with this, much appreciated.
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
