On Jan 8, 2008 4:32 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 8, 2008 4:11 PM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2008 3:11 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 2008 10:50 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 8, 2008 3:44 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In removing the remote-resources-plugin I ommitted to add back local > > > > > resource configuration for the NOTICE.tx and LICENSE.txt files. > > > > > Because of this I would like to do another release of commons-parent. > > > > > Apologies for this. > > > > > > > > +1, because I agree that this must be fixed ASAP. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, if I am coming up with this question so late. Nevertheless: > > > > Does the current parent pom deal with adding NOTICE.txt and > > > > LICENSE.txt to the javadoc jar files? > > > > > > No - but AIUI it doesn't need to since it only contains the generated > > > javadoc and not anything we develop. > > > > Javadoc is full of copyright - that's why it's the part of spec jars > > Yes and we have our copyright notice on every page. > > > we can't replicate. Just because it's a secondary artifact doesn't > > change that - so I bet we should have the files in the javadoc jars. > > Well it just seems like rule-making gone mad and I bet if you went > looking thru' all the m2 generated javadoc jars in the ASF distro dirs > then none would have it.
I posted this on legal-discuss here: http://apache.markmail.org/message/cnmhhqpk5o6hlv7e Niall > Niall > > > Hen > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
