Hi, On 03/02/2011 07:05 PM, Gabriele Columbro wrote:
Technically speaking, the way we add it to the packages is the proper one I believe (using the maven-shared-resources-plugin just as any Maven ASF artifact).
The main idea behind it is that all release packages should have a LICENSE file that includes or at least references the license terms of all IP included in that package.
Thus we need to include such extra notes only in jars or other packages that include bits that are under other licenses than the ALv2. Most notably Maven dependencies need only be mentioned in the LICENSE file if the build embeds the dependencies in the resulting build artifact like is done for example in the dist and webapp packages.
Yes having it SVN would be easy. Maybe not in the LICENSE file. In the README would work?
All licensing information should be in the LICENSE file. The best place to put such notes is in src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE for jar archives and in the appropriate other locations for other kinds of archives.
Using a shared resource bundle for this is useful if you'd otherwise end up duplicating the same information too many times, but it's probably not worth the extra complexity for eliminating just a few duplicates.
I'm wondering how other ASF projects (with external dependencies) do.
See [1] and [2] for how this is done in Jackrabbit for jar and war archives. There we explicitly include all the licenses of embedded external components, but also just a reference to the relevant license terms would be OK.
[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-spi-commons/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE [2] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-webapp/src/main/webapp/META-INF/LICENSE
-- Jukka Zitting
