[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3764?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12927585#action_12927585
]
Simon Nash commented on TUSCANY-3764:
-------------------------------------
I have compared the source distribution LICENSE file, the binary distribution
LICENSE file, and the individual LICENSE files for all the modules released via
the maven repository.
There are some differences of substance that must be fixed. There are other
differences of formatting that aren't essential to fix, but fixing these as
well makes life a lot simpler because it makes it much easier to see the
important differences.
To resolve this issue I am making the following changes:
1. Bring the individual module NOTICE and LICENSE files into line with the
split between the text in NOTICE and the text in LICENSE that was made in the
binary and source distribution NOTICE and LICENSE files under revision r996380.
This involves moving copyright information from the NOTICE file to the LICENSE
file where the license terms allow this.
2. Copy OSOA license text from binary distribution LICENSE file to the LICENSE
files in assembly-xsd, host-webapp, sca-api and tools/eclipse/plugins/core, so
that the same text appears in both places.
3. Copy jsonrpc.js license text from binary distribution LICENSE file to the
LICENSE files in binding-jsonrpc-runtime and implementation-web-runtime, so
that the same text appears in both places.
4. Fix incorrect copyright date in source distribution LICENSE file.
5. In the binary distribution LICENSE file, move the dojotoolkit license
information from the second section describing generic redistributed files to
the first section describing third-party files used by specific Tuscany modules.
6. Delete unnecessary or incorrrect license or copyright information in the
databinding, implementation-bpel, implementation-bpel-ode and
contribution-groovy modules.
7. Where files are 99% identical and differ only in trivial matters such as
blank lines, make them 100% identical.
8. Minor rewording for consistency.
> Some LICENSE/NOTICE files in individual module jars aren't consistent with
> the LICENSE/NOTICE files in the binary distribution
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TUSCANY-3764
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3764
> Project: Tuscany
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: SCA Java Runtime
> Affects Versions: Java-SCA-1.6
> Reporter: Simon Nash
> Assignee: Simon Nash
> Fix For: Java-SCA-1.6.1
>
>
> Some runtime module jars contain redistributed code under third-party
> copyrights and/or licenses.
> 1) Each individual runtime module jar that contains third-party code should
> contain appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files for that code.
> 2) The aggregate binary distribution should contain appropriate aggregate
> LICENSE and NOTICE files for all redistributed third-party code contained in
> runtime module jars that are part of the binary distribution.
> Item 2) should correspond exactly to the aggregate of everything in item 1).
> At present this isn't the case.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
