On Jun 11, 2008, at 1:33 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It would be great if some people could check everything, so that
we're safe
for our upcomming release.
There's FeedParser license information at the end of trunk/LICENSE. If
we use LICENSE.* files for non-ALv2 licenses, then we should put that
into LICENSE.feedparser.
Also, note that for example Derby and Xerces come with extra NOTICE
entries that we should include at least in the binary packages.
I am struggling to understand what is going on here. LICENSE and NOTICE
refer to the copyrightable material in *this* package. Surely we don't
distribute Derby and Xerces in *this* package, do we? Jetty? WTF?
Just to be clear, LICENSE and NOTICE have nothing whatsoever to do
with dependencies or what might happen after the user downloads the
source code and runs "mvn install". Those files exist to define the
licensing conditions on redistribution of *these* bits and nothing more.
Maven downloads are separate distributions under their own licenses.
The LICENSE and NOTICE files always have some scope. The scope of the
ones under trunk in subversion are the contents of the code under that
trunk. Sometimes they include additional notices for the source
code of libraries that are not directly in subversion but are always
added by the RM prior to generating the *source* release package, so
that the RM doesn't need to collate it after the tag.
If additional binary packages are created, they will each have their own
LICENSE and NOTICE that are specific to the contents of that package.
If this is a common occurrence, then it is a good idea to have some
part of the project's subversion space dedicated to storing the
binary packaging build instructions and corresponding NOTICE/LICENSE
for each such package.
When a larger package includes code (not dependencies -- actual
copyrighted bits) from some other licensed source, then the license
on that foreign source must be obeyed. How that is accomplished is
often specific to what parts of the source are included. If the
license on those bits is different from the Apache License, that
must be noted in the LICENSE file by inclusion or by reference
to the associated license file location within the same package.
Required attributions that remain applicable to the final package
must be noted in the NOTICE file. Note that this does not include
any notices that are not required, any notices that are not relevant
to the parts of the foreign source that will be included in
this package, nor any notices for packages that are merely
dependencies and not actually included in *this* package.
I've tried to review the files, but how can I? There is no
documentation in the README or on the website or on the wiki
that tells me what is being included in the release and why.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] find . -name .svn -prune -o -name NOTICE\* -print
./api/NOTICE
./commons/json/NOTICE
./commons/log/NOTICE
./commons/mime/NOTICE
./commons/osgi/NOTICE
./commons/scheduler/NOTICE
./commons/testing/NOTICE
./commons/threads/NOTICE
./engine/NOTICE
./extensions/adapter/NOTICE
./extensions/apt/parser/NOTICE
./extensions/apt/servlet/NOTICE
./extensions/bundleresource/NOTICE
./extensions/dojo/NOTICE
./extensions/dojo-sling/NOTICE
./extensions/event/NOTICE
./extensions/httpauth/NOTICE
./extensions/i18n/NOTICE
./jcr/api/NOTICE
./jcr/base/NOTICE
./jcr/classloader/NOTICE
./jcr/contentloader/NOTICE
./jcr/jackrabbit-api/NOTICE
./jcr/jackrabbit-client/NOTICE
./jcr/jackrabbit-server/NOTICE
./jcr/ocm/NOTICE
./jcr/resource/NOTICE
./jcr/webdav/NOTICE
./launchpad/app/NOTICE
./launchpad/base/NOTICE
./launchpad/content/NOTICE
./launchpad/jcrapp/NOTICE
./launchpad/webapp/NOTICE
./maven/maven-jcrocm-plugin/NOTICE
./maven/maven-jspc-plugin/NOTICE
./maven/maven-sling-plugin/NOTICE
./NOTICE
./osgi/obr/NOTICE
./parent/NOTICE
./samples/path-based-rtp/NOTICE
./samples/simple-demo/NOTICE
./samples/webloader/service/NOTICE
./samples/webloader/ui/NOTICE
./scripting/api/NOTICE
./scripting/core/NOTICE
./scripting/freemarker/NOTICE
./scripting/javascript/NOTICE
./scripting/jsp/NOTICE
./scripting/jsp-taglib/NOTICE
./scripting/jst/NOTICE
./scripting/ruby/NOTICE
./scripting/velocity/NOTICE
./servlets/get/NOTICE
./servlets/post/NOTICE
./servlets/resolver/NOTICE
That's simply ridiculous. And it's nothing compared to the tree
view. 836 directories, 983 files. Java sucks! And no docs.
Each one of those bundle directories deserves a README.txt that
explains why on earth we are crazy enough to need it.
Let's back up a bit. Write the docs first that explain what
Sling is and what each of these major directories are for, and
then we can edit the NOTICE files from the bottom-up. The
DISCLAIMER files are not necessary -- they should be a paragraph
in the README.txt file that is part of each package.
....Roy
