On 29/01/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 29/01/2008, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > An alternative to what we do now with all the licenses embedded in the one > > > top level LICENSE file is to include the licenses in individual files > > > either > > > in a separate licenses folder or in the same folder as the dependency so > > > its > > > real easy to see if any are missing and what they apply to. I thought that > > > was discouraged but it seems to be becoming acceptable again and makes > > > thing > > > clear i think. > > > > > > +1 Having separate license files, one for each dependency where appropriate, > > doesn't mean we can't concat them together into a top level if that is > > required. > > I'm not sure that separate LICENSE files are allowed (tried to find > that out recently), but even if they are, AFAIK the main LICENSE file > would have to have pointers to the additional files, so could not be a > vanilla AL 2.0 anyway. > > > Another thing that would help a lot is to use the Maven plugins to help > > > generate our legal files instead of creating them by hand. > > There have been some discussions about this in Commons which have yet > to be resolved. I would wait until those are resolved and the > documentation is updated before going that route. > > > > > Me immediate reaction is that I don't think having more maven plugins is a > > good thing. A while back I looked at the plugin configuration that CxF use > > to generate their license information and it seemed effective but ultimately > > seems like quite a complicated way of reading a configuration file that maps > > dependencies to licenses. Probably OK if you wrote the plugin but personally > > I found it quite difficult to follow. Maybe I didn't spend enough time on > > it. I know more about releases now so I'll take another look and see if it > > is clearer. > > See above.
Just had a look at the CXF NOTICE file, which looks a mess to me. For example, it includes the line: "This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown organization' " which is not exactly helpful or accurate (or grammatical!) ... The NOTICE should only apply to software that is included in the distribution, not transitive dependencies - i.e. the "/uses" should be removed. Etc. - please don't go there until the requirements are clarified and the plugin amended to work as per the requirements ... > > Simon > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
