On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]> wrote: > 2011/7/11 Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]>: >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]> wrote: >>> What's the problem with its LICENSE/NOTICE? (IIRC we agreed that was >>> OK to use a single LICENSE/NOTICE tuple in this case because even the >>> source distro has non-ALv2 contents to be declared and providing >>> multiple LICENSE/NOTICE is more caothic than having one including >>> informations about artifacts that *may* be included in each released >>> package). >> >> Similar problems to the James application... > > James app had many artifacts not referred in the NOTICE/LICENSE: from > a fast review it seems jSPF includes them.
But not correctly > Can you be more specific > (maybe adding a comment to the JIRA issue > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPF-91 )? Using the same legal documents for binary and source distributions assembled using maven-assembly-plugin causes the problem. To fix, clean the LICENSE and NOTICE files in version control and switch to using maven's standard source build. For the binary, use source LICENSE and NOTICE documents (in src/licensing, say) and have the binary build copy them in. The correct the LICENSE and NOTICE so that contain the right stuff. Robert (currently working on tooling) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
