We distribute binaries with the source distribution as well. Otherwise it is not possible to build the source. This too is similar to Lucene and Solr.
I am curious as to when it became a requirement that source and binary distributions have independent LICENSE and NOTICE files. Thanks, Karl On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> Some clarifications: >> >> Hi Roy, >> >> (1) Our LICENSE.txt file currently contains references to all >> non-Apache jars that we redistribute, and a reference or description >> of the licensing of that jar. We do not attempt to relicense >> anything. No shared release process is involved for any third-party >> jar we redistribute. The actual text we include is typically >> something like this: >> >> "This product includes a jaxb-impl.jar. >> License: Dual license consisting of the CDDL v1.0 and GPL v2 >> (https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html) >> Jar included under terms of CDDL v1.0 license." >> >> (2) The purpose for including the above is to clarify the terms under >> which we believe that we are able to redistribute those jars. >> Therefore I don't think Sebb's request is unreasonable. If you >> believe that this information is in the wrong place, then please let >> us know where it should go. As I've said before, we're not doing >> things any differently than most other Apache projects. >> >> Please clarify your recommendations. > > I had two separate comments, neither of which are intended as > a criticism of ManifoldCF. > > First, Sebb's request is reasonable; it just happens to be wrong. > No Apache project needs to say "Jar included under terms of > CDDL v1.0 license." A project might choose to say that, but > it is nonsense, and certainly isn't a requirement of incubation. > > Second, Apache projects only release SOURCE. We don't release > third party binaries, period. Hence, the specific examples that > you provided are not valid for a release LICENSE. They might be > valid for the license file included within a binary package, but > please note that such a license file will be different from the > LICENSE that is provided in the source distribution, and is not > something we would be voting upon (because no PMC can be expected > to verify the validity of those binaries). Hence, what you need > to do is split the LICENSE in two -- one for source packages (that > do not include dependent jars) and one for binary packages (that > do include the dependent jars). > > Hopefully, Jukka can step in and document how the LICENSE and > NOTICE files are crafted for Jackrabbit and Sling, since those > projects have the exact same issues regarding third-party libraries > that are only included in the binary packages. > > ....Roy > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
