Hi, On Nov 19, 2007 3:59 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think releasing binaries and source code in separate files is ok, as > long as all distributed artifacts contain the NOTICE and LICENSE file.
Yes. The main release artifact is always the source package, and other artifacts can be included in the release as long as they carry the appropriate licensing information. Looking back at my original message, it reads like I was suggesting just the binary jar file, but that was certainly not my intention. What I typically do for Apache releases is a) tag the source tree in the repository, b) export it to local file system, c) package that export as the main source artifact, and d) build any binary artifacts from the exported source. > Current, NOTICE.txt says > > This product includes software developed by Andy Clark. > > Could we specify what this software is? It makes it easier to keep > track of things. Sami added that for the NekoHTML dependency. I don't think we really need that line unless we actually bundle the dependencies with Tika releases. > Also, I think NOTICE and LICENSE (without .txt extension) are the > preferred filenames, can someone confirm? I believe those are the canonical names, but the .txt extensions are accepted. Having the .txt extension makes life easier at least on Windows. BR, Jukka Zitting
