So, since build.xml has all the third-party components listed in the get-third-party-X functions (at the bottom-ish of the file) we can conclude:
I should add to the repository: NOTICE.src, NOTICE.bin, LICENSE.src, LICENSE.bin Then, during release-src, NOTICE.src and LICENSE.src get pulled in as NOTICE and LICENSE (Similarly for release-bin). With: NOTICE.src + LICENSE.src containing all the packages listed in get-third-party-codegen and get-third-party-test and NOTICE.bin + LICENSE.bin containing all the packages listed in get-third-party-runtime Does that make sense? Also, for NOTICE.x, should every package [as detailed above] get mentioned, or should only packages whose license explicitly requires a notice, get put in there? Thanks. Ali On 18/08/2013, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > first off, here are soem links: > http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: >> - Moved all third-party things to be downloaded automatically during >> build - one of the reasons for an IPMC -1. There are now no jars in >> the src releases. [This makes it much smaller!] >> - Fixed assorted licensing (notably src/python/api) and other files to >> use the correct "Licensed to the ASF under contributor license >> agreements" header. - another of the IPMC -1's >> - Removed some more 'Copyright Google 200x' messages that were still >> floating around >> - Added SimpleJSON and Protobuf licenses to LICENSE. >> >> The other bit of feedback from the incubator vote was regarding >> LICENSE/NOTICE not seeming to be correct. >> I am unclear what should be being put in either/both now. (Especially >> since the third-party items are downloaded rather than being >> distributed by us). >> I also saw it mentioned that sometimes LICENSE/NOTICE are different >> for the source release, than for the binary release - could you >> clarify if that is going to apply to this tree. > > OK, please see this: > http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice > > To my understanding you should put these things into the NOTICE file > which you are using. If you for example use software from Library $x, then > you should include them in the notice file. Think on import statements or > lets > say some plugins. > > If you are only using a library file in the binary artifact, then you > should only > put a NOTICE there. For example a runtime dependency. > > Same goes to LICENSE. > > I am not an expert in that matter, but i think the links should > reflect what i wrote here. > >> >> Could you look over the new tree at the above url, and provide some >> information on what should be going in LICENSE/NOTICE now. >> [This is not a request for feedback on the release, rather just some >> pointers on how to tidy up the remaining licensing problems before >> making rc4]. > > If you would make a source package from that, I would expect to find > usage of DOM4J, JDOM and JODA. I would not expect to find some code > relating to JXYZ. > > Maybe its easy to think: src-package LICENSE/NOTICE contains what you > need to compile. > bin-package LICENSE/NOTICE contains what you need to run. > > Cheers > Christian > > >> Thanks. >> Ali > > > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de > https://www.timeandbill.de >
