Ok checked back and the notice rules are strict on one asf page and less on another one, guess this is where the divergence came.
I feel quite bad to drop it from notice since it is a key dependency with a very particular license (BSD-3-Clause+custom). I think it does worth mentionning it for end users but we don't have such standard file @asf, right? Is it a big deal to keep it this way? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> 2018-03-14 19:00 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product > includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement > (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it > there. > > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file. > > > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice > to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let > users do again this job which is insanely bad. > > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded >> dependency) include >> >> This product includes software developed at >> OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/) >> >> There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to >> declare any notice. >> >> >> Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no >> bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was >> not sure it was that ok to completely drop it. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> yep, as written ;) >>> >>> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> >>> >>> 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Romain, >>>> >>>> as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right? >>>> >>>> Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >>>> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Hi! >>>>> >>>>> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7. >>>>> >>>>> Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apach >>>>> e.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049 >>>>> The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apach >>>>> e.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache >>>>> /xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip >>>>> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5 >>>>> >>>>> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10). >>>>> >>>>> [+1] ship it >>>>> [+0] meh, don’t care >>>>> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason} >>>>> >>>>> The VOTE is open for 72h. >>>>> >>>>> Here is my +1. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
