On 17/08/16 19:04, Ellison Anne Williams wrote:
> From the discussion, although this seems to be somewhat murky ASF ground,
> it seems that we need two sets of L&N files:
> 
> 1.) L&N files to accompany executable jars, which include the transitive
> L&N requirements dictated by the build (this is what our L&N files reflect
> in PR 53)

Yes (with the caveat below).

> 2.) L&N files to accompany source-only jars, which, in our case, would
> really include only 'our' ASL L&N as we aren't distributing anything else
> but our source

Yes.

> Is this correct?
> 
> If so, from Billie's comments, it seems that we can accomplish this via
> configuring our maven assembly plugin. We can make a 'assembly' directory,
> include the source-only L&N files there, and configure accordingly. Is this
> an acceptable practice?

It needs to be the other way around, that is the L&N files in the _root_
of the Pirk repository should reflect our managed source code (i.e. (2)
above), so that as people look at the repo, and clone it they see the
correct L&Ns.

The L&N files, accurately representing the results of building Pirk, can
be pulled in from a subdirectory and appear in the root of the exe JAR [1].

At the moment, PR#65 is looking to put the binary L&N files into the top
of the repository, and that is not correct.


[1] or the META-INF/ dir if that is how we need to do it, but root would
be preferable IMHO.  Of course, the source L&Ns would not appear in the
binary JARs.

Regards,
Tim

> P.S. -- When I downloaded the NiFI source release here
> https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua?path=/nifi/1.0.0-BETA/nifi-1.0.0-BETA-source-release.zip
> and checked the LICENSE and NOTICE files, I see the same files as in the
> master branch on github -- am I completely missing something here?
> 
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Billie Rinaldi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> It looks like it is also possible to have
>> src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE and
>> src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/NOTICE that will be appended to the
>> default. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3990 and these
>> examples:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo/tree/master/server/
>> monitor/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF
>> https://github.com/apache/hbase/tree/master/hbase-
>> thrift/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF
>>
>> This is for jars; it's also easy to adjust L&N for assemblies (tars and
>> zips) because you're explicitly listing files to include in the assembly
>> spec.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/08/16 16:08, Ellison Anne Williams wrote:
>>>> I'm seeing the same LICENSE and NOTICE files used throughout NiFi -
>> even
>>> in
>>>> the nifi-assembly directory which is referenced here
>>>> https://nifi.apache.org/licensing-guide.html
>>>
>>> FWIW the LICENSE I see in "nifi-1.0.0-BETA-source-release.zip" is quite
>>> different to that in "nifi-1.0.0-BETA-bin.tar.gz".  So they have figured
>>> it out.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>> Joe - Am I missing something here?
>>>>
>>>> I would echo Suneel and ask if (1) it is really a strict requirement
>> for
>>>> our sources jar and/or (2) if we are interpreting it correctly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Suneel Marthi <
>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/08/16 11:40, ellisonanne wrote:
>>>>>>> Github user ellisonanne commented on a diff in the pull request:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     https://github.com/apache/incubator-pirk/pull/65#
>>>>>> discussion_r75099656
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     --- Diff: LICENSE ---
>>>>>>>     @@ -199,4 +199,64 @@
>>>>>>>         distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS"
>>>>> BASIS,
>>>>>>>         WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express
>>> or
>>>>>> implied.
>>>>>>>         See the License for the specific language governing
>>> permissions
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>     -   limitations under the License.
>>>>>>>     \ No newline at end of file
>>>>>>>     +   limitations under the License.
>>>>>>>     +
>>>>>>>     +
>>>>>>>     +===========================================================
>>>>>> ============
>>>>>>>     +Apache Pirk (incubating) Subcomponents:
>>>>>>>     +
>>>>>>>     +The Apache Pirk project contains subcomponents with separate
>>>>>> copyright
>>>>>>>     +notices and license terms. Your use of the source code for the
>>>>> these
>>>>>>>     +subcomponents is subject to the terms and conditions of the
>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>     +licenses.
>>>>>>>     +
>>>>>>>     --- End diff --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm confused - how do we create different LICENSE and NOTICE files
>>>>>>> for the different jars when they are built via the release plugin?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm guessing it requires some pom foo beyond my feeble capabilities
>> :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure how u can package/not package license files in different
>>>>> artifacts.
>>>>> If this is a strict requirement, a good chunk of TLPs today are in
>>>>> violation of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we have Justin McLean or John D. Ament from IPMC review our
>>>>> artifacts now?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides stating the obvious that :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) we'd store the source LICENSE and NOTICE file in the project
>>>>>> repository root, and place in there only the required information for
>>>>>> code we are hosting in our repo and including in the source.jar.  For
>>>>>> Pirk as it is today, that will be a plain ALv2 text and simple
>> notice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) we'd then have alternative LICENSE and NOTICE files for the
>>>>>> convenience "exe" JAR in a subdirectory that are used to replace the
>>>>>> top-level files when building the binaries.  This would refer to the
>>>>>> license/ directory containing the full text of the 3rd-party
>> licenses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe our friends from Apache NiFi can explain what they do, as they
>>>>>> have the correct information in their release guide [1], and they are
>>>>>> Maven-based too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A number of other projects I peeked into don't seem to be doing the
>>>>>> right thing IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://nifi.apache.org/licensing-guide.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

Reply via email to