Re: Test release artifacts - Legal requirements check [take2]
On Mar 18, 2008, at 2:29 PM, Reinhard Poetz wrote: I've created another series of non-Maven release artifacts. See http://people.apache.org/~reinhard/cocoon-staging/cocoon-servlet-service/ Jar file name to source/documentation directory name mapping is inconsistent: cocoon-servlet-service-components-1.0.0-RC1.jar -- cocoon- components/ cocoon-servlet-service-impl-1.0.0-RC1 -- impl/ and http://people.apache.org/~reinhard/cocoon-staging/getting-started/ This contains spring version 2.0.6, while cocoon-webapp in trunk is linked against 2.5.1. Does not seem correct. Do we really have to include each license into single LICENSE.txt file? I think I missed this development... BTW you have duplicate AL2 there - for ehcache. Seems redundant - especially since all other AL2 jars are not explicitly mentioned. Vadim
Re: Test release artifacts - Legal requirements check [take2]
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
On Mar 18, 2008, at 2:29 PM, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I've created another series of non-Maven release artifacts. See
http://people.apache.org/~reinhard/cocoon-staging/cocoon-servlet-service/
Jar file name to source/documentation directory name mapping is
inconsistent:
cocoon-servlet-service-components-1.0.0-RC1.jar -- cocoon-components/
cocoon-servlet-service-impl-1.0.0-RC1 -- impl/
thanks, I will fix this.
and
http://people.apache.org/~reinhard/cocoon-staging/getting-started/
This contains spring version 2.0.6, while cocoon-webapp in trunk is
linked against 2.5.1. Does not seem correct.
I was using the RC1 Maven archetypes to create the cocoon-webapp. For the
release I will use the new archetypes that will be used on the latest stuff.
Do we really have to include each license into single LICENSE.txt file?
I think I missed this development...
There were so many discussions on several Apache lists that I can't point you to
the thread :-/
Anyway, I was following the proposed structure as being suggested at
http://wiki.apache.org/legal/3party/notice
BTW you have duplicate AL2 there -
for ehcache. Seems redundant - especially since all other AL2 jars are
not explicitly mentioned.
IIRC it was slightly different, but I will check this.
--
Reinhard PötzManaging Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member, PMC Chair[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
Re: Test release artifacts - Legal requirements check [take2]
Reinhard Poetz wrote: Vadim Gritsenko wrote: Do we really have to include each license into single LICENSE.txt file? I think I missed this development... There were so many discussions on several Apache lists that I can't point you to the thread :-/ Anyway, I was following the proposed structure as being suggested at http://wiki.apache.org/legal/3party/notice It has always been required, and it gets re-iterated in many license discussions. At both Cocoon and Forrest we have had trouble doing it, having so many supporting libraries. So we put the licenses beside each jar as text files with the same filename. At Forrest i have done a further compromise (until we move to Ivy which hope can help automate this license management). We put the license beside the jar as a text file, and mention the pathname in LICENSE.txt file. See more in a legal-discuss@ link, mentioned by me earlier in this thread. -David
Re: Test release artifacts - Legal requirements check [take2]
I've created another series of non-Maven release artifacts. See
http://people.apache.org/~reinhard/cocoon-staging/cocoon-servlet-service/
and
http://people.apache.org/~reinhard/cocoon-staging/getting-started/
What has changed:
o The archive name is the base directory of the ZIP.
o fix EOL, depending whether it is a ZIP or a tar.gz archive
o the getting-started package is new and contains third-party libraries
This time I want also draw your attention to the LICENSE.txt file of the
getting-started package. There you will find a list of all subcomponents that
have licenses that are different to the Apache License 2.0. This is the same
style as proposed in http://wiki.apache.org/legal/3party/notice.
Additionally, could others please check
o NOTICE.txt
o MD5 checksums
o PGP signatures
Thanks in advance!
--
Reinhard PötzManaging Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member, PMC Chair[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
