On 10/12/09 14:06, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Sounds good.
I'd like to have on point clarified though. What's the intent for use
/ include wrt to a binary jar, a source assembly (ready to build), a
binary assembly (composed of multiple bundles like the karaf one), a
source jar (only the source for the jar with no build system), and a
javadoc jar (only contains the javadoc) ?
When reviewing all the license / notices files for karaf, it was not
always clear to me what I should put in all those cases.
I agree, it can get confusing.
From my point of view, we should try to only have one NOTICE file for
both the source and binary (JavaDoc not so sure). So, in that case if
the two are different the NOTICE file ends up being the union of the
two. For creating distros, like we do with framework packaging it with
some bundles, then you need a new NOTICE file for that one that again is
the union of everything included.
But the point is, we want to keep this as simple as possible for us to
manage. It will be a pain to create different NOTICE files for every
different situation.
-> richard
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 14:00, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I realize
that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use" Apache
developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on Maven to build).
It seems silly to list Apache under both "include" and "use", especially
since the main point of the NOTICE file is for third-party notices.
I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor out the
Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections for third-party
notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for framework:
Apache Felix Framework
Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
(http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
I. Included Third-Party Software
This product includes software developed at
The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
II. Used Third-Party Software
This product uses software developed at
The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
This product uses software developed at
The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
III. Overall License Summary
- Apache License 2.0
To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
Apache Felix AAA
Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
(http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
I. Included Third-Party Software
BBB
II. Used Third-Party Software
CCC
III. Overall License Summary
- Apache License 2.0
- DDD
Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and DDD
would list their licenses.
What do you think?
-> richard
