On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 09:28 -0600, Jesse McConnell wrote: > >> +1 to have your official 'distribution' contain everything needed > to > >> run > > > > It remains to be seen whether this can legally be done. > > sorry, I didn't see which artifacts would be problematic for this, > could you call them out?
The binary release artifacts created by the `release' target in build.xml, (they look something like apache-cassandra-$VERSION-bin.tar.gz on the mirrors). > apache legal has been very helpful on this in the past for maven, and > the maven release process has done a lot of work in terms of making > the release process at apache sane and legal I've tried to find comparable maven or ivy-based projects to see how others handle this, (without luck). Comparable here means having release artifacts that are more than just jars, (i.e. containing config samples, startup scripts, etc), with dependencies not developed at the ASF, and which cover a range of different licensing (MIT, BSD, Public domain, etc). Again, having our cake and eating too would be better than choosing the lesser of evils, so any suggestions would be well received. -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com
