On Jan 10, 2008 9:01 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > AIUI, the NOTICE file is not about dependencies, it is about the > artefacts that are actually included in the distribution.
Absolutely correct, I interpret as being about the copyright in our source, not things we redistribute. And given we don't even redistribute dependencies... even less important. I think it's definitely true that you could put the NOTICE files from the dependencies in the NOTICE, and concatenate the LICENSEs from the dependencies onto the LICENSE file; and if this were a GPL C project then I would be tempted to do just that. In Java we get to redistribute binaries and so I think it's cleaner to put the license/notice files next to the redistributed jars. > In the case of Commons, dependencies are normally not included in the > distribution, and should therefore not be included in NOTICE. +1000. It's plain wrong. > Indeed, I suspect that most (possibly all) Commons distributions need > the same NOTICE file - the only difference being the initial copyright > year. > > Or have I missed something here? Look at Common EL's NOTICE. Look at Apache HTTP Server's LICENSE. Both files should not be the same; and the final copyright year shouldn't either (ie: just because you build in 2008, doesn't magically give us 2008 as a latest copyright year). Making LICENSE/NOTICE inclusion easier is a good idea - but the mrr-plugin has solved it wrong as far as I can tell. We should solve it ourselves by making all components pull the same filenames into the jars we want them to go into (binary/source/javadoc). Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
