HI Kevan, I just commit the fix based on your comments. Thanks! For #1, Do you mean the one in framework\configs\karaf-framework\src\main\distribution\text ? I noticed that, and will copy them to there when the LICENSE is ok.
2011/10/21 Kevan Miller <[email protected]> > 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 > > -- Lei Wang (Rex) rwonly AT apache.org
