On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > <sarcasm>Because legal documentation is so much fun for > everyone</sarcasm>, I'd like to get a reaction to the following: > > As part of releasing 4.0.0-incubating, we got some feedback from the > IPMC around the LICENSE and NOTICE file contents. [1] Specifically, > the question was raised about removing the license and notice data for > > For the purpose of resolving this in the 4.0 branch, I made a commit > [2] that added the following heading prior to listing binary > dependencies that are packaged in the reference package spec / deb: > > Binary or packaged versions of this software (including versions built > from > source) contain third party resources (as listed below). > > Recently, the general@i.a.o and legal-discuss@a.o lists have been > talking about how to help new projects understand how to do LICENSE > and NOTICE files correctly. Those discussions resulted in a new page > [3] on the a.o/dev site, which has further reiterated the concerns > raised during our vote. > > Leaving the 4.0 branch alone, I'd like to make the following changes > within master: > * Remove all binary dependency license and notice info from the top > level LICENSE and NOTICE files in our source tree > * Create two copies of the Whisker descriptor.xml file (stored in > tools/whisker), one that can be used to regenerate the source distro's > LICENSE and NOTICE files, and one that can generate an appropriate > LICENSE and NOTICE file for a packaged version of the software. > * Generate and commit the package LICENSE and NOTICE file to the > tools/whisker folder. > * Ask that the folks working on packaging take the (to be committed) > tools/whisker/LICENSE and tools/whisker/NOTICE files as the correct > legal documents to include with the package installation. > > After those steps, I'd like to get Whisker working as part of the > build... but I think that can wait for a bit more time (another > release). Also, the packaging process should probably be provided > with the EXACT legal docs needed for each package, instead of a > general purpose ones that include all source and binary legal docs. > Again, I think this can wait for the next release as well. > > I'll proceed with the changes next week, baring any objections. I'll > follow up with Wido, Noa and Hugo on the packaging of the legal docs > after I get the rest sorted. > > -chip > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/tgdidqzsceatfjo3 > [2] > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-cloudstack.git;a=commitdiff;h=1434ade39597a48976268d27eba94b280755b9a2 > [3] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
The changes in master are done. Wido, Hugo and Noa, can you please take a look at pulling the tools/whisker/LICENSE and tools/whisker/NOTICE files into the packages as the correct legal docs for their content? We may also need to change the descriptor-for-packaging.xml file to correctly note the location of the artifacts. -chip
