sebb a écrit : > On 25/07/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/commons-math-2.0-RC1/ > > Sigs OK, but the MD5 and SHA1 hashes are different from usual: > > MD5(commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz)= 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211 > > This complicates checking them. > > The normal format is: > > 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211 *commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz > > The NOTICE file still shows 2008. > > Also, the NOTICE file contains some 3rd party licences - these should > be in the LICENSE file; NOTICE should be for attributions only.
I have looked at other commons components for an example of how to put all licenses in the LICENSE file. I found none. The only components that have external attributions in the NOTICE files apart from [math] are the following ones: [vfs] states this in the NOTICE file: As an optional dependency it uses javamail developed by SUN Microsystems You can get the library and its source from http://java.sun.com/products/javamail/ This library uses the CDDL open source license [codec] states this in the NOTICE file: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- src/test/org/apache/commons/codec/language/DoubleMetaphoneTest.java contains test data from http://aspell.sourceforge.net/test/batch0.tab. Copyright (C) 2002 Kevin Atkinson (kev...@gnu.org). Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [el] states this in the NOTICE file: EL-8 patch - Copyright 2004-2007 Jamie Taylor http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EL-8 [compress] states this in the NOTICE file: Original BZip2 classes contributed by Keiron Liddle <kei...@aftexsw.com>, Aftex Software to the Apache Ant project Original Tar classes from contributors of the Apache Ant project Original Zip classes from contributors of the Apache Ant project Original CPIO classes contributed by Markus Kuss and the jRPM project (jrpm.sourceforge.net) All these components put only the Apache license in the LICENSE file, which seemed fair to me. The dependencies these components have fit well with either no license text or a small one (a link to the license by name for [vfs], a single short sentence for [codec]). This is not sufficient for [math] since we have to put the text of BSD type licenses for several classes, this is the reason why I put these in the NOTICE file at first. It seems strange to me to put a single license file with both our license and these external licenses. Should these really go in the LICENSE file or could they be put in a separate file (OTHER-LICENSES or a name like that) or in several separate files, (LICENSE-lmder, LICENSE-Heirer, LICENSE-lapack ...) ? Luc > > I think this is a release blocker. > > The packaging of the binary archive looks wrong as well - I don't > think it should contain Javadoc for the test code, nor the Cobertura > reports (IIRC these have an incompatible license?). Looks like the > entire site was accidentally included, as the binary archives are > huge. > > Also a release blocker IMO. > > The source files use the $Date$ SVN marker, which makes it hard to > compare the SVN tag with the source archive, as the date is expressed > in local time. Not a release blocker, but ideally I'd like to see > these removed at some point. > > Code builds and tests OK for me on Java 1.5 using Ant and Maven2. > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
