On 6/20/08, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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".
The best way to approach this would be to create a patch and contribute it through JIRA. Development and documentation of policy works as any project. See links from http://www.apache.org for details about changing content on www.apache.org. -Robert > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
