Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Stefano Bagnara<apa...@bago.org> wrote: >> David Jencks ha scritto: >>> On Jun 14, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Norman Maurer wrote: >>> >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> here is the VOTE for release jSPF 0.9.7. Please cast your VOTE after >>>> review: >>>> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~norman/staging-repository/org/apache/james/jspf/apache-jspf/0.9.7/ >>>> >>> I'm confused by a few things. >>> >>> I'm really confused by the two LICENSE files and two NOTICE files. Not >>> being a lawyer I think I'd have to consult one before considering using >>> the product. I'm not sure how anyone could figure out which file >>> applies to the product. >> This is how most James releases are distributed. Maybe the >> LICENSE.apache file is only needed by projects using ANT, but Robert can >> probably give a better answer. Maybe we can remove the NOTICE.base and >> LICENSE.apache as long as we don't have ant support. > > they're there because people wanted them there > > if no one wants them any more, i'm happy to remove them > >>> My understanding of apache policy is that the legal files are supposed >>> to describe and apply to exactly what is in the artifact that contains >>> them. I didn't do a complete search but suspect from the language that >>> the larger LICENSE and NOTICE files also include information about >>> dependencies such as junit that are not actually redistributed. The >>> notice file also has some "thanks for the inspiration" notes that don't >>> seem to me appropriate for the NOTICE file. Again, its only my >>> impression of apache policy, but I think the NOTICE file is supposed to >>> be as short as possible and only include the standard apache notice and >>> anything legally required by external code that is actually included in >>> the artifact. >> We discussed it also on legal-discuss. THe policy is to describe ikn >> NOTICE and LICENSE exactly what we have in each distro but most projects >> don't do this and doing so would be a PITA, so it is acceptable to have >> a NOTICE/LICENSE that include more that what is required. > > <rant> > to my best knowledge, no committee votes have happened to change to > this much stricter policy nor to bless my descriptive non-normative > documentation on the apache site with policy status. some others > vigourously disagree with this point. so, i really don't want to get > into yet another useles flame war about what is and what is not apache > policy :-/ > </rant> > > i would agree with david that it's best to be precise and minimal but > as far as i'm concerned the james releases are within the acceptable > range. i'd be happy to move further towards what i think of as best > practice if there are no longer any objections to that.
To my knowledge there are JIRA issues for the legal team opened since a year. If there is some sort of consensus they should be closed and all of the apache projects should be warned about the policy because, as you can see from a fast overview I did when I opened that issues, most of them simply don't follow the most basic rules. In order to have a correct NOTICE/LICENSE (with no superflous stuff in it) for each package most time means having 1 for the binary, 1 for the source distro, 1 for the remaining artifacts. I don't think it is worthy for anyone to have to mantain such a PITA. >>> The BUILDING.txt and README.txt don't have apache license headers. I'm >>> really not sure if they are required to, but adding them removes all >>> questions from sticklers like me :-) >> Ok, but minor. > > i prefer to keep notices as readable as possible > > - robert I didn't say that they are not to be applied, but I think 0.9.7 is a good release. At least as good as most release from JAMES in the last 2 years. IMHO they can go in 0.9.8, but if no one else put a +1 to this 0.9.7 or someone put a -1 then we'll wait for someone to fix and push a new release to be reviewed (waste of time, in my opinion). Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
