Maybe I should have added that I reviewed and updated our LICENSE file.
Although I somehow intended to rush the release, I think I can put some cycles in to adapt our LICENSE strategy, especially as it's added to each maven artifact. Specifically I'd like to get rid of EPL 2.0 (https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#weak-copyleft-licenses)
Let’s start with an audit to generate three lists: (1) What added code do we currently include in our codebase. (2) What are the dependencies in our builds. What is brought in - not our build tools. (3) What is included in our binaries. (2) and (3) should be the same, but ...
(1) mostly Apache project code - the rest is mentioned in the NOTICE file (2) I've separated the dependencies and so this is somewhat shown in the /lib subdirectories - /lib/ooxml-provided should be now taken as mandatory dependencies. /lib/main-test, /lib/ooxml-tests, /lib/util are our build tools. (3) Binary doesn't contain /lib/main-test, /lib/ooxml-tests, /lib/util Source doesn't contain any libs I guess, I don't have to do transitive license checks here, as long as our library runs with the included dependencies.
Once we have those lists we review what licenses and notices are required. We then revisit our LICENSE and NOTICE files, and we will decide if we should have a separate LICENSE and NOTICE for binary releases.
So I conclude, I remove the junit / jacoco / hamcrest entry. Although I thought differently first, this makes it unnecessary to provide two LICENSE files :) Thank you for the guideline!
What are the current build instructions for trunk?
http://poi.apache.org/devel/index.html Andi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
