On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > 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?
Makes sense to me. > 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? Good question. I would think you should mention every package, required or not. First its just nice to give credits. Second, if some packages are missing people might start to think they have just missed. For the record, the IPMC might have different opinions. But I believe we have very good arguments if we do it like that. Cheers Christian > > 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 >> -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de
