I'm running a full build from the tag with all the tests and a clean .m2 directory at the moment. I'm sure it'll be fine, but I always like to try a build when voting :). Meanwhile, I've been taking a look at the legal report. I'll do a bit more on this tomorrow, but I spotted a couple of things so far:
The following modules do not have META-INF/LICENSE and META-INF/NOTICE files: openejb-karaf-commands-4.0.0.jar openejb-karaf-rebranding-4.0.0.jar openejb-provisionning-4.0.0.zip (no LICENSE, but NOTICE is present) openejb-ssh-4.0.0.zip xbean-finder-shaded-3.10.jar I really like the legal report, but I could probably use a reminder of exactly how to read it... specifically around declared and undeclared licenses/notices. Using the TomEE webprofile zip as an example ( http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/staging-068/legal/org.apache.openejb.apache-tomee.1.0.0.apache-tomee-1.0.0-webprofile.zip.licenses.html), it looks like there are both declared and undeclared licenses. I would read an undeclared license as one that is present in one of the jars included in the zip, but has been missed in the main zips LICENSES file. Is that correct? If so, ideally we should have no undeclared licenses? Apologies if I'm missing something, or making a silly mistake, but I'd rather get this right. Jon On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:02 AM, David Blevins <[email protected]>wrote: > Looks like the links were not quite right :) Need update the template. > Here is what it should have listed: > > SVN Tag: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/tags/openejb-4.0.0/ > > Maven Repo: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-068 > > Binaries & Source: > > http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/staging-068/openejb-4.0.0/ > > Legal: > > http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/staging-068/legal/archives.html > > > > -David > >
