Thanks David. I also got David on IRC and he explained me in more details how we could clean our legal files.
It is possible to remove the files in the META-INF folder of our projects (I think we can even delete the META-INF folder itself) and relocate them when it's appropriate as Velocity templates under 'src/main/appended-resources/META-INF'. I'll take care of this in the next days. Regards, Pierre-Arnaud On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:11 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I don't know what is in your jars under discussion. > > My understanding of the policies about LICENSE and NOTICE files is that > they apply to what is actually in the artifact (jar in this case) being > distributed. The DEPENDENCIES file you mention includes information about > stuff that is not included in the artifact but is likely to be needed to > actually use it: this is provided purely as a convenience for users that > want to get a head start on tracking the licenses of these dependencies. > > So, unless you are actually including in the jar some code under a > different license or that has been contributed to apache with additional > NOTICE requirements then the standard LICENSE and NOTICE files from the > maven remote resources plugin with the latest apache bundle should be fine. > > That's my understanding anyway.... there always seems to be a lot of > arguments from ant lovers and C coders whenever this is discussed. > david jencks > > > > On Sep 25, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Felix Knecht wrote: > > Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot schrieb: >> >>> >>> I think we're done with this refactoring. Everything has been replaced >>> and still works. :) >>> >> :-) >> >>> >>> While we were doing this, I noticed that the LICENCE.TXT and >>> NOTICE.TXT files that are located in the META-INF folder are not used, >>> nor included in the final jar. >>> >>> However, hopefully we don't ship our jars without having these files >>> included. I believe they are added (with an extra DEPENDENCIES file) >>> by Maven during the build. I remember a discussion about that some >>> time ago on the mailing list. >>> >>> Now, the question is: If the produced files are legally OK, I think we >>> should remove the ones in META-INF. >>> >> I'm not a laywer so I can't say OK.... >> The LICENSE and NOTICE file added are the once from Apache - at least >> they look alike. >> ATM we to have other licenses also mentioned in the >> META-INF/LICENSE.TXT. The DEPENDENCIES file seems to collect them but >> they seem to be taken from the transitive dependency poms. If the >> configuration of these poms is not complete we don't get them in, e.g. >> nlog4j, xpp3: >> >> e.g. studio-dsml-parser DEPENDENCIES: >> // Transitive dependencies of this project determined from the >> // maven pom organized by organization. >> // ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Apache Directory Studio DSML Parser >> >> >> From: 'an unknown organization' >> - AntLR Parser Generator (http://www.antlr.org/) antlr:antlr:jar:2.7.7 >> License: BSD License (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) >> - nlog4j org.slf4j:nlog4j:jar:1.2.25 >> >> - Unnamed - xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.3.4.O >> (http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/xgws/xsoap/xpp/mxp1/) >> xpp3:xpp3:jar:1.1.3.4.O >> >> >> From: 'Apache Software Foundation' (http://www.apache.org/) >> - XML Commons External Components XML APIs >> (http://xml.apache.org/commons/#external) xml-apis:xml-apis:jar:1.0.b2 >> License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0 >> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt) >> >> From: 'JUnit' (http://www.junit.org) >> - JUnit (http://junit.org) junit:junit:jar:3.8.2 >> License: Common Public License Version 1.0 >> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.txt) >> >> From: 'MetaStuff Ltd.' (http://sourceforge.net/projects/dom4j) >> - dom4j (http://dom4j.org) dom4j:dom4j:jar:1.6.1 >> >> >> From: 'QOS.ch' (http://www.qos.ch) >> - SLF4J API Module (http://www.slf4j.org) org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.5.2 >> >> >> From: 'The Apache Software Foundation' (http://jakarta.apache.org) >> - Collections (http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/) >> commons-collections:commons-collections:jar:3.2 >> License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0 (/LICENSE.txt) >> - Lang (http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/lang/) >> commons-lang:commons-lang:jar:2.3 >> License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0 (/LICENSE.txt) >> >> From: 'The Apache Software Foundation' (http://www.apache.org/) >> - Apache Directory ASN.1 Shared >> (http://www.apache.org/project/shared-parent/shared-asn1) >> org.apache.directory.shared:shared-asn1:jar:0.9.13-SNAPSHOT >> License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0 >> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt) >> - Apache Directory Protocol Ldap Shared >> (http://www.apache.org/project/shared-parent/shared-ldap) >> org.apache.directory.shared:shared-ldap:jar:0.9.13-SNAPSHOT >> License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0 >> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt) >> - Apache Directory Protocol Ldap Shared Constants >> (http://www.apache.org/project/shared-parent/shared-ldap-constants) >> org.apache.directory.shared:shared-ldap-constants:jar:0.9.13-SNAPSHOT >> License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0 >> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt) >> >> >>> WDOT ? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Pierre-Arnaud >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Felix Knecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> >>> Just some more questions... >>> >>> What about all the *features MF files? Is it the same as for >>> *help MFs? >>> >>> >>> Yep. >>> >>> >>> >>> What about the dsml-parser MF? >>> >>> >>> I was thinking about letting maven do this for us, as this is a >>> simple jar. Same thing for the apacheds-launcher project. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Pierre-Arnaud >>> >>> >>> >> >
