On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:20 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > Simon Kitching wrote: > > ---- Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > >> On Jan 10, 2008 9:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* > >>> information about the files in the current maven module. The NOTICE > >>> should *never* *never* have information about files in other maven > >>> modules, ie data should *never* be pulled from other poms in order to > >>> generate the NOTICE file. > > Is this ASF policy? I studied the "ASF Source Header and Copyright > Notice Policy", but the docs on the contents of the NOTICE file is > rather scarce.
No, there is no policy doc that says this. And yes, unfortunately docs on the NOTICE file is indeed rather scarce. This is just my personal untrained legal opinion - as I indicated in the original email (this bit appears to have got trimmed away). I have asked this question on legal-discuss and got no answer. However this has always been the practice up to now, and there have been no legal issues. What is being proposed is something new. > > > It's the bit about NOTICE file generation that I care about. > > > > I know that the remote-resources plugin is capable of pulling in a copy of > > the LICENSE file from a central location. I don't personally think this is > > a good idea, and that checking in a copy manually to each project is > > better, but care less about this than the NOTICE file. > > > > Is there something else that the remote-resources plugin would do for > > commons projects *other* than handle NOTICE and LICENSE? If so, I'm not > > aware of it.. > > It can be used for *any* remote resource bundle that we'd care to > create. One common use case is to package configuration files for > Checkstyle and PMD into a jar file. That jar file is deployed to the > central repository and can be downloaded by mrrp, thus ensuring that a > bunch of related projects all share the same configuration. That looks really useful functionality, and I'm all in favour of it. That hadn't been mentioned AFAIK. The only bits I am worried about are NOTICE and LICENSE. And if we receive a proper legal opinion that the new approach is acceptable, then I would certainly not veto any release using generated files. I still don't *like* them as I think they are not as user-friendly as a file checked in to SVN, but that's not nearly so important. So, given that you've explained that maven-remote-resources has other uses, I'd be happy to see it defined in the parent dependencyManagement - as long as it does *not* generate any notice files by default. And that means not just stopping if one exists in the filesystem, but actively having to be told to generate one. Would you be willing to add a config flag for that? Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
