On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Stefano Bagnara<apa...@bago.org> wrote: > David Jencks ha scritto: >> >> On Jun 14, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Norman Maurer wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> here is the VOTE for release jSPF 0.9.7. Please cast your VOTE after >>> review: >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~norman/staging-repository/org/apache/james/jspf/apache-jspf/0.9.7/ >>> >> >> I'm confused by a few things. >> >> I'm really confused by the two LICENSE files and two NOTICE files. Not >> being a lawyer I think I'd have to consult one before considering using >> the product. I'm not sure how anyone could figure out which file >> applies to the product. > > This is how most James releases are distributed. Maybe the > LICENSE.apache file is only needed by projects using ANT, but Robert can > probably give a better answer. Maybe we can remove the NOTICE.base and > LICENSE.apache as long as we don't have ant support.
they're there because people wanted them there if no one wants them any more, i'm happy to remove them >> My understanding of apache policy is that the legal files are supposed >> to describe and apply to exactly what is in the artifact that contains >> them. I didn't do a complete search but suspect from the language that >> the larger LICENSE and NOTICE files also include information about >> dependencies such as junit that are not actually redistributed. The >> notice file also has some "thanks for the inspiration" notes that don't >> seem to me appropriate for the NOTICE file. Again, its only my >> impression of apache policy, but I think the NOTICE file is supposed to >> be as short as possible and only include the standard apache notice and >> anything legally required by external code that is actually included in >> the artifact. > > We discussed it also on legal-discuss. THe policy is to describe ikn > NOTICE and LICENSE exactly what we have in each distro but most projects > don't do this and doing so would be a PITA, so it is acceptable to have > a NOTICE/LICENSE that include more that what is required. <rant> to my best knowledge, no committee votes have happened to change to this much stricter policy nor to bless my descriptive non-normative documentation on the apache site with policy status. some others vigourously disagree with this point. so, i really don't want to get into yet another useles flame war about what is and what is not apache policy :-/ </rant> i would agree with david that it's best to be precise and minimal but as far as i'm concerned the james releases are within the acceptable range. i'd be happy to move further towards what i think of as best practice if there are no longer any objections to that. >> The BUILDING.txt and README.txt don't have apache license headers. I'm >> really not sure if they are required to, but adding them removes all >> questions from sticklers like me :-) > > Ok, but minor. i prefer to keep notices as readable as possible - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
