David Jencks ha scritto:
<total snip>
So I seem to have provoked much more discussion than I intended here.
David, don't take my words as too harsh: this is my way to understand
things and communicate ;-)
I really appreciate your help and I will try to summarize what we
discussed and to push "Legal Affairs" so that they confirm this summary
and put something in the website, so in future a similar thread will
stop with "the policy is writte at this url, if you don't agree at this
url you find an explanation of who and how the policy is defined".
Similar threads keeps repeating, if we end up with this stuff published
then this thread has not been a waste of time. It is an issue that the
whole thread from january didn't generate a clear result (at least to my
understanding).
> 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.
I personally don't like to have to do that and I don't share the legal
references made to justify the existence of this policy, but I agree
that most people in the legal-discuss thread we referred previously
agreed on this.
I opened this issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26
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.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-27
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.
To not have the NOTICE/LICENSE in svn and have it automatically created
by maven would be simpler, but if legal affair will agree on the policy
above I'll agree that this is the best option now.
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 submitted the 2 JIRAs above :-)
Let's give a good ending to flames :-)
My issue was not your strategy but the need to have LICENSE/NOTICE in
svn and the need to manually mantain a different LICENSE/NOTICE file for
each package released (expecially a different LICENSE/NOTICE file for
src zip and bin zip because they ship different contents).
Furthermore the strategy is not generally applicable because most m2
projects do not have dependencies in svn so the LICENSE/NOTICE for the
binary with runtime dependencies package will have to be created
somewhere else or managed via a second m-r-r-p plugin in the build.
*IF* the above JIRA will be approved and added to the policy it would be
probably good if maven (or some of our maven guides for ASF, like the
activemq, geronimo, openjpa guides I found really useful in past)
document a good way to achieve the result (2 m-r-r-p seems the only
alternative to manually create multiple copies, but maybe smarter people
have smarter solutions)
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
Yes, for our m2 based projects we use maven release plugin and we use
the stage/deploy process described in the guides previously quoted. jars
are automatically published to ASF m2 repository.
To make sure we don't leave anything back I also opened this:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28
Thank you,
hope you understand that beside my methods I was propositive :-)
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
