Stefano Bagnara ha scritto:
David Jencks ha scritto:
2. each artifact distributed from apache must include a LICENSE and
NOTICE file applying to the contents of that artifact.
[...]
Are we sure that if I include the bigger LICENSE&NOTICE from the one
aboves in ALL of our packages I'm breaking #2. In fact my LICENSE&NOTICE
from a legal point of view protect us because I'm sure I'm informing the
user about the copyrights/license of what I include. I don't see a
problem in telling him something more about something I don't include.
[....]
I agree that in a perfect world each artifact would have its own perfect
NOTICE/LICENSE file, but what I want to understand is what the board say
we MUST do and what the board say you SHOULD do that but it is a policy
issue and each PMC is entitled to decide this.
To mantain a LICENSE/NOTICE tuple for each released artifact is a PITA
and IMHO unnecessary waste of time.
I'd like to give some references to artifacts being released by other
PMC. I bet they are not aware they are doing something wrong (if this is
really something wrong)
Geronimo:
http://www.apache.org/dist/geronimo/2.1.1/geronimo-2.1.1-src.zip
http://www.apache.org/dist/geronimo/2.1.1/geronimo-framework-2.1.1-bin.zip
http://www.apache.org/dist/geronimo/2.1.1/geronimo-jetty6-minimal-2.1.1-bin.tar.gz
You download them you will find they redistribute different jars but
they ship with the SAME LICENSE/NOTICE file (the one including the most
stuff).
OpenJPA:
http://www.apache.org/dist/openjpa/1.1.0/apache-openjpa-1.1.0-binary.zip
http://www.apache.org/dist/openjpa/1.1.0/apache-openjpa-1.1.0-source.zip
The source package does not include dependencies but LICENSE and NOTICE
are identical to the one included in the binary package.
Harmony:
http://www.apache.org/dist/harmony/milestones/M6/apache-harmony-hdk-r653525-linux-x86-32-snapshot.tar.gz
http://www.apache.org/dist/harmony/milestones/M6/apache-harmony-src-r653525-snapshot.zip
Big stuff, difficult to tell, but it is weird to think that their
linux-binary distro and the source distribution contains the same set of
dependencies but still they have equal NOTICE/LICENSE and a
THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.txt (?) files.
HTTPD:
For httpd you will find the same NOTICE/LICENSE for source distribution
and for each binary distribution, excluding
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/netware/apache_2.0.63_netware.zip
that surprisingly does not provide a NOTICE file!!
Tapestry:
For tapestry again source and binary ships the same files:
http://www.apache.org/dist/tapestry/tapestry-bin-5.0.13.zip
http://www.apache.org/dist/tapestry/tapestry-src-5.0.13.zip
Tomcat:
http://www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6/v6.0.16/src/apache-tomcat-6.0.16-src.zip
http://www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6/v6.0.16/bin/apache-tomcat-6.0.16.zip
the same NOTICE/LICENSE for both packages.
If you want to strictly follow #2 rule then all of them will need a
different NOTICE/LICENSE for each package but as you can see this is an
extensive list and they all use the same file. If this is really an
issue for the board and #2 is a rule for the board then the board should
read this list and take action to allow people understand there is such
a rule, because WE (ASF committers) are not really aware of all of this
stuff: we need as few rules as possible, but written somewhere :-)
FWIW I'm much more scared by the missing NOTICE file in the netware
binary package of httpd than the fact that each of the NOTICE above may
include sentences not appropriate for the source or the binary package.
*IMHO*: The first is a legal issue, the second is instead a matter of
style and personal preference.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
