Hopefully fixed, i.e., I pushed the standard Apache license. That's all we
need for the source release.
Gj
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Thanks! Assumed that file was the same for all projects, will investigate
> and fix.
>
> Gj
Thanks! Assumed that file was the same for all projects, will investigate
and fix.
Gj
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:38 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> Just to give a bit of a hand
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/LICENSE#L277-L285
> - you don't need to
Just to give a bit of a hand
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/LICENSE#L277-L285 -
you don't need to repeat the apache license, if there's a NOTICE that needs to
get replicated, HOWEVER, the paths to the files listed don't exist in this repo
so its not really valid.
For the source release, in the top-level folder of incubator-netbeans, a
LICENSE and NOTICE are now present:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-57
Gj
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:27 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> So far, I like the discussion I'm seeing happening
So far, I like the discussion I'm seeing happening on list. The feedback from
Ate and Bertrand makes a lot of sense.
On 2017-09-20 09:38, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
> Two things I don't understand right now, hope mentors can advise or someone
> who knows:
> 1.
Two things I don't understand right now, hope mentors can advise or someone
who knows:
1. Is there any reason why we would not simply have one NOTICE and one
LICENSE file, i.e., in the top level of incubator-netbeans. In other words,
why and under what conditions would we want to have more than
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> ...if I understand it correctly, if a ('convenience') binary is created
> for a subset of sources, then it should contain notices only for that
> subset, right?...
Ideally yes.
Considering that binaries are not Apache
I believe that's correct based on the comments in this thread.
Gj
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 at 12:10, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Jan Lahoda
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> > ...I think we could enhance this with adding a
> > "-notice.txt" attached to each library and adjusting the build to
> produce
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> ...I think we could enhance this with adding a
> "-notice.txt" attached to each library and adjusting the build to produce a
> composite LICENSE and NOTICE files based on data from modules that are
> being built into the
So far, when I was thinking of this, my thoughts regarding external
libraries were like this: AFAIK, currently, every external library is
expected to have a "-license.txt" file attached (with the license of the
given library), and the build is then merging them into a single file for
the given
On 2017-09-19 06:16, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
Many thanks for all these details. Two things jump out at me:
1. "those NOTICE and LICENSE files *only* refer and apply to what has been
checked into the (that!) git/subversion source tree, *nothing else*. So no
references to 3rd party dependencies
Many thanks for all these details. Two things jump out at me:
1. "those NOTICE and LICENSE files *only* refer and apply to what has been
checked into the (that!) git/subversion source tree, *nothing else*. So no
references to 3rd party dependencies which are pulled in at build time!"
That's very
On 2017-09-16 08:28, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
Hi all,
Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-57.
Trying to find an Apache project to use as reference point, looked around a
bit, and Apache Spark seems to be complex enough in terms of its
dependencies to follow:
14 matches
Mail list logo