On 22/06/2011 03:10, Ross Gardler wrote:
I'm verifying wookie-198 - I have had rather too much red wine to be
doing this, but I promised Scott and he bought me a beer so I'm
trying...
Problem is I still can't find any reference to some of the jars
identified in wookie-198
There are also a whole bunch of jars mentioned in runtime_licence that
are not included in the distribution (e.g. lucene-core)
The issue is that both the standalone/WAR builds contain extra jars,
which the src build does not. For example lucene-core can be found under...
org.apache.incubator.wookie-standalone-RC2-0.9.0-20110520\build\webapp\wookie\WEB-INF\lib\
Hence why for the standalone/WAR builds there is an additional
RUNTIME_LICENSE file.
It's actually very difficult to review this as there is minimal
correlation between the licence and the jar in question. I think we
need to use a clearer licence model. We should consider creating a
license folder and within that put all the license files that we need,
named in such a way that it is easy to look trough ivy.xml and the
widget lib folders and cross check.
Agreed, but I was following the suggestions made in WOOKIE-198...
"The best option is to group the jars with it's respective license and
list them explicitly, this allows future automation to see if all the
jars are mentioned in the license, see example :
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/photark/trunk/distribution/src/main/release/bin/LICENSE";
licence/activation_license.txt
licence/jetty_license.txt
This will make it much simpler to check (regardless of how much red
wine has been consumed).
Ross
On 18 June 2011 01:03, Ross Gardler<[email protected]> wrote:
Sorry,
I'm really unbelievably busy right now. However, we are at an event
together next week working on Wookie. I'll be in the late night
hacking room with a beer. Come find me and make me do it then (if not
already done).
Ross
On 16 June 2011 17:33, Scott Wilson<[email protected]> wrote:
[Bump!]
Can someone check the license files etc in the RC2 distros and (hopefully)
close these remaining issues?
WOOKIE-195
Source and Binary distribution need a few more disclaimers and notices
WOOKIE-198
Standalone binary distribution does not mention 3rd party license library
licenses
WOOKIE-200
Source distribution is missing MIT license for JQuery
S
On 1 Jun 2011, at 19:14, Scott Wilson wrote:
I think this may have got "buried" when there were a lot of 0.9.1 commits going
in.
I've tried them all out now and had no problems other than having to "chmod +x
startup.sh" on the standalone version. Can everyone else give them a try so we can
finish the release?
S
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paul Sharples<[email protected]>
Date: 20 May 2011 16:33:04 GMT+01:00
To: [email protected]
Subject: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
Reply-To: [email protected]
Hi all,
I've uploaded some new builds for the 0.9.0 branch (and called them RC2). FYI:
The standalone and war builds contained quite a few more libraries than the
source build, so I had to track them down and so have now put those specific
ones in the RUNTIME_LICENSE file, found at the root of the standalone and war
distros. If the licence files are now in order, I will close the remaining
JIRA issues against it.
http://people.apache.org/~psharples/wookie/staging-area/0p9p0/rc2/
Hopefully we are there now.
thanks
Paul
P.S - We *should* have all the license issues sorted out now (however, we're
still waiting on the [email protected] list for a reply about one
particular license -
http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/viewcvs/~checkout~/XPP3/java/LICENSE.txt), but
we think it is okay.
--
Ross Gardler<[email protected]>
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
