Thanks Rex!
A couple of points:
1) source LICENSE and the LICENSE file included in generated binaries (e.g. )
are not in sync. If I recall correctly, there are
2) there are artifacts that are missing from the source LICENSE. E.g.:
* repository/com/sun/xml/bind/jaxb-xjc/2.2.3-1/jaxb-xjc-2.2.3-1.jar
*
repository/org/apache/wink/wink-common/1.1.3-incubating/wink-common-1.1.3-incubating.jar
That's just from some random searches. There needs to be some concerted
effort to identify all artifacts and insure they are listed.
3) W3C license for soap_encoding.xsd should refer to our source, not jar:
"The artifacts under the following folder are also covered by the above W3C
license:
soap_encoding_1_1.xsd in
./repository/org/apache/geronimo/modules/geronimo-webservices-builder/"
Above should refer to
"plugins/webservices/geronimo-webservices-builder/src/main/resources/META-INF/schema/soap_encoding_1_1.xsd",
I think. Not the jar. Looks like you didn't create this problem, but now
something to fix... ;-)
4) I see that you've changed from listing explicit artifacts (e.g.
repository/com/sun/xml/bind/jaxb-xjc/2.2.3-1/jaxb-xjc-2.2.3-1.jar) to
folders/directories (e.g. repository/com/sun/xml/bind/jaxb-xjc/). I probably
prefer the explicit names, but I don't know anything wrong with listing the
directory/folder. Although it could lead to some imprecision... Using
directory/folder names makes things simpler in subsequent releases (as version
numbers change, etc) -- as long as we're inspecting for license/notice
changes...
If anyone is suitably motivated, an automated tool to help generate this
information would certainly be very much appreciated by Geronimo and ASF
community. The RAT incubator project would be a good home for this. I haven't
been following the community. So, perhaps there has been some development
there...
5) This is a change to the way we've handled dual licensed artifacts in the
past -- we don't need to include both licenses in the LICENSE file and select
one. We can simply the make our choice and only include the relevant LICENSE
(e.g. for CDDL/GPL artifacts, we only need include the CDDL license -- no
mention of GPL in license/notice files is needed). If I can get some time, I'll
try and make these updates...
--kevan
On Oct 19, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Rex Wang wrote:
>
> Hi Devs,
>
> I just updated the LICENSE and NOTICE file of 3.0-beta-1 at revision: 1186228.
> Could anyone help reivew them so that we can avoid some issues in vote?
>
> regards,
> --
> Lei Wang (Rex)
> rwonly AT apache.org
