On 20/02/2008, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 20/02/2008, at 1:04 PM, sebb wrote: > > > On 19/02/2008, Shane Isbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Based on feedback from the general incubator list, we have the > >> following > >> issues > >> > >> OUTSTANDING > >> Copyright Name - Should the copyright contain ASF or Apache NMaven? > >> According to Brett, it should be ASF, which also sounds right to > >> me. Looking > >> through the incubator project releases: cxf, tika, felix, I also > >> see ASF. > > > > The Notice file(s) in the jars should contain something like > > > > Apache NMaven > > Copyright 2006-2008 The Apache Software Foundation > > > > (i.e. as per > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/nmaven/tags/maven-dotnet-parent-0.15-incubating/NOTICE.txt > > ) > > > > *not* > > > > maven-archetype-dotnet-class-library > > Copyright 2006-2008 The Apache Software Foundation > > > > IMO that does need to be fixed. > > I don't think this is critical - but changing it to Apache NMaven or > Apache NMaven :: DotNet Class Library would certainly be an improvement. > > > > > > >> Itemized Notice File - This is done by default. I'm not sure how to > >> remove > >> the itemization or whether this is necessary. > > > > I think it's created by the remote resources plugin. > > Just remove that and use the NOTICE file that is already in SVN. > > I'm not sure it's incorrect now - if you look at the example that the > Apache licensing site gives, it is itemised: > http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt >
In the example-NOTICE file, there is one entry per organisation, and the file only contains details of software that is actually included, not software that is used. The entry for the ASF does not itemise individual products. There is no // header. However I do agree that individual non-ASF products *that are included* could be itemised, if only to make it easier to ensure that the required notices are present. It is probably not necessary, as the NOTICE file is for required notices. Now the generated NOTICE file in http://people.apache.org/~sisbell/staging-repo/org/apache/maven/dotnet/maven-dotnet-compiler/0.15-incubating/maven-dotnet-compiler-0.15-incubating.jar looks (and is) very different from the example. As I wrote before, unless the project distribution artifacts include non ASF code, then the existing NOTICE file at the top-level of SVN is all that is needed for the jars. NOTICE files are only for included items. > as is the description for it's content: > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice > > > > > > > Likewise, I think the existing NOTICE files in the jars need to be > > fixed. > > > >> .asc.sha1 files - This is also done by default. Looking through the > >> Maven > >> project in the central repo, I see the same thing. Is this > >> something that we > >> should be concerned with? > > > > That's not at all urgent. > > Agree. > > > > > > >> SOLVED > >> > >> License headers in test classes > > > > However there are still quite a few other source files that don't have > > headers, for example: > > > > maven-dotnet.iml > > maven-dotnet.ipr > > These are generated by IDEA. I'm not sure why they are in SVN, but > they don't need licenses. They should be excluded from any source > distribution though. > Agreed - they should be removed (or ignored) in SVN. > > > > archetypes/maven-archetype-class-library/src/main/resources/ > > archetype-resources/pom.xml > > This is a template that will be used to generate another pom.xml, so > it shouldn't include the license as that'll appear in the output (and > the user may not want to license it as such) Perhaps consider naming the files as .template so this is obvious? There are some other files I did not list, e.g. the site.xml, .apt and .cs files. The RAT tool will show the full list. > Cheers, > Brett > > -- > Brett Porter > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ > >
