On 7/31/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/30/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> * the MANIFEST files should comply with the various java standards on > this matter. these are really a long way away so i can't list just a > few corrections. creating complient releases should be included in the > release management guide very soon but for now see > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases/prepare.html#checkjarmanifest This is one of those areas I'm pretty ignorant on, but I'll try and take a look if nobody beats me to it.
this area is a PITA since there are multiple specifications and recommendations which aren't particularly consistent :-/
> important notes > * there are no license or notice files in the jars distributed in the > binary. though this is not necessarily a blocking issue, these > artifacts cannot be distributed as raw jars without them. therefore > these jars cannot be distributed through maven. if you want to do > this, you must include LICENSE and NOTICE files in the jars. This does seem like something we should fix, I'll look into it soon. > blocking issues > * copyright headers missing from too many source files (pom.xmls, > build.xmls, numerous xml and xslt files, docs/*.html). not all of > these files will be substantial enough for copyright to exist in them > but IMHO there are so many that this should be addressed before > releasing. > > IMO the license headers should be addressed before this release I've added copyright headers to the docs, pom files, build.xml, and a few java files that slipped in without them. So far I haven't added them to the various .xml files in the test suites since, well, the average feed you parse off of the net doesn't have a big honking comment at the top, so it seems like we'd be deviating a bit from what we intend to test. There are numerous files in numerous ASF projects that don't contain embedded licenses (images, for example), I'm not sure if this fits the same category, but I suspect it might.
i suspect so too but IANAL
Similarly I haven't added them to the properties files we parse at runtime, since it seems silly to increase the size of the file by more than an order of magnitude if all that data is just going to be run over by the parser when it's looking for the data it needs.
small property files may not be copyrightable and may not need a license header but this needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
Haven't merged this into the release branch yet, but it'll happen before the release is rerolled. I'd also be curious what people think about the test case xml files issue.
the issue of test files is interesting and needs clarifying on legal discuss (i'll resist the temptation to speculation) since this is a corner case, i don't see no headers in small property files and xml used for testing to be an serious enough to block an incubator release whilst the policy is qualified. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
