Salut Martin,
I'm not sure I fully understand your objection/suggestion, nor your
motivation. Right now, each JAR has no particular information about
licensing, except that every code file should have a standard header.
My suggestion is to add 2 elements to every jar file:
1) A document indicating the license(s) applicable to the whole
jar. This is generally called COPYING in the gnu-style C
language projects. We might chose LICENSING instead.
2) The set of documents with the text of the licenses. I would
name these LICENSE_LGPL.txt or similar.
The implementation cost is merely adding the files to the right modules
and adding a few lines to the respective pom.xml files. The distribution
cost is a few kilobytes (these are all text files). The maintenance cost
would merely be to change these files if we ever changed the licensing
or if the license were updated.
Is your objection to the size this adds to the distribution? Is it to
the lack of esthetics of having the same files repeated in each module?
Or is it something else?
I personally find URLs slightly unpleasant for such files. We are all
very networked but the whole world is not yet quite that well off. I
could easily see cd's of a uDig SDK floating around parts of the world
and I would just assume that these contain all the relevant files.
--adrian
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 00:05 -0400, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Adrian Custer a écrit :
> > As I understand things, we want geotools to be modular so that users can
> > grab what they want and leave the rest. If this is true, then we want
> > the LICENSE info in every jar so that even if users only grab one jar,
> > they have all the relevant info. There is so little cost to adding the
> > LICENSE to every jar that it seems like a reasonable strategy.
>
> I agree that each module may have a different set of licenses. My proposal
> was
> not to applies to same licenses to all modules. It was rather to provide the
> license texts in a common directory (namely 'licenses'). Then, each module
> would
> only provide a list of *references* to the licenses they use. This approach
> seem
> to fit well in Maven, since there is a section in pom.xml file specially for
> licenses, so we can list there the URLs (not the full texts) to the relevant
> licenses for each module.
>
> Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
