Technically... its bad for a module to need to access bits from ../
(or ../../ or ../../../../../../). The proper way to do this would
be to add them to a new license module, then have each module depend
on it, using dependency plugin to download unpack and then antrun to
copy into place.
Still easier to have LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt local to the module.
Most of them will be the same, so not much work to maintain... a few
will need to be customized to keep us legal.
If we want to have a global... then we gotta write up some custom
plugin to handle that automatically for us.
--jason
On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:04 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 18, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:53 AM, John Sisson wrote:
Whilst testing the geronimo eclipse plugin, eclipse prompted me
to acknowledge the Sun license at http://developers.sun.com/
license/berkeley_license.html when caching the j2ee schema files
(e.g. http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee/ejb-jar_2_1.xsd ).
This made me wonder whether this license has been included for
Geronimo (since we redistribute schema files) and it appears the
LICENSE.txt file in 1.1 doesn't contain it.
I'll add a JIRA for 1.1.1 if there aren't any objections.
Can anyone think of any other licenses or notices we may have
overlooked?
Yes. Would appreciate your thoughts on the following:
1) Fix LICENSE and NOTICE files for branches/1.1/modules/util
(currently they are only Bouncy Castle -- I believe that we have
ASL code in there, also).
I think we should do it
2) Do we need to add Bouncy Castle to our "global" LICENSE and
NOTICE files (i.e. branches/1.1/modules/scripts/src/resources/) ?
I think yes.
3) Insure NOTICE files are included in our jar files (currently
only LICENSE files are there)
4) Do we need to add LICENSE/NOTICE files in our generated CARs?
5) Can the "global" LICENSE and NOTICE files be used in all our
generated artifacts (distributions, jars, cars)? Or do we need
global files and specific license/notice files for generated
module jars and car files?
--kevan
2-4 should be run by legal, no?
To support #5, I hope we don't need some kind of maven magic.
I think 1,2,3 are must do's. I think we can ignore 4. There are
some CAR "files" in ibiblio -- http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/
geronimo/cars/ However, I'm not sure why they are there... They are
all "1.0" and dated December 22nd. Should we have them removed? To
my knowledge, we don't build or distribute CAR files in 1.1 (we do
have ".car" directories in our repository, but IMO that's no
different from any other directory name we might have...)
Regarding 5, I think the right thing to do is have a global LICENSE
and NOTICE file in the base of our distributions. We currently have
this. Each of our jar files should have LICENSE and NOTICE files
specific to each jar. I don't think that this is hard to do. Am I
wrong? They all need standard ASL license and notice files. util
needs to include bouncy castle info. Are there other geronimo
generated jars with any licensing requirements beyond ASL 2?
--kevan
