[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2508?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17333455#comment-17333455
]
Steve Lawrence commented on DAFFODIL-2508:
------------------------------------------
I don't think the NOTICE should include GE or Owl. The original NOTICE file
includes UoI, IBM, and Tresys because those companies wrote the code that was
ultimately donated to ASF. Any new contributions to the Apache Daffodil project
are considered copyright/developed by the Apache Software Foundation, from the
CCLA/ICLA stuff that was signed by all committers.
So this NOTICE either needs to be a copy of the existing NOTICE file that
mentions UoI/IBM/Tresys, or should just include the stuff about Apache and not
the "originally developed by" GE/Owl stuff. The latter is probably technically
correct, but I don't think anyone would argue against having the NOTICE copied
since it makes maintenence easier if everythign is the same, and it doesn't
necessarily specify which code from from those companies. It's more just saying
this is the APache Daffodil project, developed by ASF, some other companies may
have contributed part of this project.
> Missing LICENSE and NOTICE files in daffodil-runtime2
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DAFFODIL-2508
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2508
> Project: Daffodil
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Documentation
> Reporter: Steve Lawrence
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 3.1.0
>
>
> I noticed that the daffodil-runtime2 jar does not contain a LICENSE file.
> Since we distribute this jar in our conveneience binaries, it's should have a
> LICENSE and NOTICE file in src/main/resources/META-INF/
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
