The check in the build is that there's a NOTICE file available, and if its there you should use that.
Realistically what I would have done is replaced the NOTICE.vm from http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/xbean/trunk/xbean-asm6-shaded/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/NOTICE.vm?revision=1764037&view=markup&pathrev=1827162 <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/xbean/trunk/xbean-asm6-shaded/src/main/appended-resources/?pathrev=1827162> with one that just includes empty strings. It's not correct to say this JAR includes software developed at the ASF, nothing in there is developed here. John On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:08 AM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, we eventually also like to fix the year "Apache XBean Copyright > 2005-2013" > > 2013.... ;) > > > So +1 for the release > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > On Monday, 19 March 2018, 16:02:11 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > well if that's the direction we take I'm tempted to say that: in both > cases we are perfectly legally fine > so we should just move forward the release if that's the only issue found. > Then once passed we should solve it in a dedicated thread. > > This means that it is not needed to mention this one anymore in the > context of this vote IMHO. > > > 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> > > 2018-03-19 15:29 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > > well, that's why we had the BSD in there! You see? > > And no, the current NOTICE is NOT wrong. The BSD-3clause, the ALv2 etc > allow to create a derivative work which is under another license. And this > is why we have > > "Apache XBean Copyright 2005-2013 The Apache Software Foundation" > > in the NOTICE file. > > But of course, by removing the BSD part from the NOTICE file this is now > totally off. > Note that the original legal ticket was created for a project which only > had a very few BSD classes. In our case the majority or work is BSD. Still > the summary derivative work (our shaded bundle) is ALv2. > > So my personal opinion is to revert back to the previous version of the > NOTICE! > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > On Monday, 19 March 2018, 15:11:23 CET, John D. Ament < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > -1 > The NOTICE file in the JAR is now worse. It indicates that the code was > developed at the ASF. > > IMHO, there should be no NOTICE file in the JAR. > > If the NOTICE file includes just > > Apache XBean :: ASM 6 shaded (repackaged) > Copyright 2005-2018 The Apache Software Foundation > > That should be enough. > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:01 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi! > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7. > > Here is the staging repo: https://repository. apache.org/content/ > repositories/ orgapachegeronimo-1053 > <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1053> > The source distribution can be found here: https://repository. > apache.org/content/ repositories/ orgapachegeronimo-1053/org/ > apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean- 4.7-source-release.zip > <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1053/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip> > sha1 is c17fb38c503b0d0c0798b0fde9cf15 44d19681d0 > > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10) and fixing asm NOTICE > file. > > [+1] ship it > [-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> > > >
