On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > My plan was to research 3rd party jar files one at a time > > and create pull requests for the Quarks NOTICE If needed. > > I would hold off on that. An Apache releases source code, so a source > release can’t include jars. You may also optionally make a connivence > binary release and that may end up having a different LICENSE/NOTICE to > the source release (as it contents are different). I would try (but it’s > only a suggestion) to try and produce a source release first. > OK, I'm fine holding off on the license work until we make a source release and sort out the jar file issue. > > > I guess a good question is whether we should remove the jar files > > completely and set up Maven or something like it instead. > > IMO they can’t stay in version control and it something that would need to > be fixed before graduation. Happy to hear other options. > OK, sounds like we need to work on a solution for this. Thank you for the advice. > > How do projects usually handle binary releases? > > Exactly the same rules apply [1] and that's dependant on it’s content. > Note this means that you will need to look inside each of the jars and see > what they contain. I can help with that as I’ve made and reviewed probably > 50? or so releases. > > Great! Your help will be much appreciated when the time comes. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I also think the current license file could be a little shorter. [1]. What > do you think? > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QUARKS-135 I'm fine with that change. To be honest, I copied that notice from an older Apache project and ran it by the IBM lawyers. I'm happy to keep it simple. I will make that change unless anyone else objects. Thank you for the education on licensing! Very helpful. Kathy
