On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:27 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <total snip> > > So I seem to have provoked much more discussion than I intended here.
don't worry - seems to happen a lot 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. in terms of best practice, i think it's just about right. (you should contribute a patch to the incubator release best practice documentation.) > 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. documentation is tough: i would describe this stuff as strongly recommended best practice rather than mandatory policy ATM - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
