<total snip>
So I seem to have provoked much more discussion than I intended here.
I don't know if its best practice, policy, or my misunderstanding but
I think the following are supposed to happen:
1. expected svn checkout points are supposed to include LICENSE and
NOTICE files at their root covering everything in the checkout, and
nothing else. These should be kept up to date via "best-effort" by
the pmc and committers, and should definitely be accurate for svn tags.
2. released artifacts should include LICENSE and NOTICE files applying
exactly to their content. If this goal is not achieved, its better
to have unnecessary stuff in the LICENSE/NOTICE files than missing
stuff.
For jsieve, I think these can be achieved simply by using the m-r-r-p
with no appended stuff for LICENSE and NOTICE for the java, source,
and javadoc jars, and using the svn LICENSE and NOTICE files for (1)
in the distro bundles.
To me, this seems easy, as simple as possible, and correct.
I've lost track of the ensuing discussion. Points (1) and (2) are my
interpretation of what I thought was consensus reached on the legal-
discuss list around dec-2007-jan-2008 leading up to release of the
latest maven remote resource bundle for apache. Getting it documented
clearly would have been a good idea at the time but I was tired.
Discussions about whether (1) and (2) are accurate would probably be
best on legal-discuss. I think Stefano wasn't sure if my proposed
strategy would work but I didn't understand why not.
I guess there might be some question about whether the java, source,
and javadoc jars are released independently, such as by deploying to
the maven central repo. I hope you do release them in this way since
not doing so makes it really hard for other projects that use maven to
use interoperate with james.
thanks
david jencks
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
