On 7/26/2011 2:27 PM, Marshall Schor wrote: > The uima-addons project has two places it keeps LICENSE/NOTICE files.
oops, I misread the assembly descriptor - it only fetches the LICENSE/NOTICE from the src/main/readme - so this looks right - that one should be the one for the binary assembly. The source assembly (which doesn't include the dependency jars) gets its LICENSE/NOTICE from the top level. Only the src/main/readme has RELEASE_NOTES files. But the assembly descriptor has a line to copy that also from the top-level - that I think should be removed. And we no longer have README files for the add-ons - so those lines can be removed from the assembly descriptor too. -Marshall > > The src/main/readme has these plus RELEASE_NOTES.html. The "top level" has > these also. > > The binary assembly copies both of these into the assembly top level - which > overlays the ones in src/main/readme with the ones at the top level. > > This doesn't look right... > > I think there are two LICENSE/NOTICE files potentially needed - if we do > things > the way we used to. One is for the source assembly; these would come from the > top level ones, assuming the src assembly is just zipping up the svn checkout, > or something close to that. The other would be for the binary assembly, and > since that is including other jars perhaps having particular license and > notice > requirements, we should be preparing a concatenation of the license and notice > files in the individual binary packagings of the add-on components. > > The other possibility would be to have the addons aggregate have a license and > notice file that said something like "Please refer to individual directories > containing each component for their respective License and Notice files". > This > would certainly ease maintenance :-). I'll ask on apache-legal if this is ok. > > -Marshall >
