On 22/06/2011 10:14, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 22 June 2011 09:55, Paul Sharples<[email protected]> wrote:
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.
OK, that makes some sense. I was starting with the source distribution
and that includes the RUNTIME_LICENCES file which is confusing. I
don't think it is a problem for this release - having extra licence
information in there is not the same as not having a complete list of
licence. However, I think it can be improved in the future, if only by
clearly labelling the two licence files in their text. We probably
want to add some header text in each, something like:
"The LICENCE and RUNTIME_LICENCE files contain licence information for
Apache Wookie. Apache Wookie is released under the Apache Licence v.2
and depends on many other software releases whose respective licences
are recorded in the files LICENCE (for building) and RUNTIME_LICENCE
(for executing)."
Does that capture the intent? If so I'll add it to SVN.
Yes, I think so.
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";
Yes, this is perfectly acceptable. I was just insisting that it be
done the way I'm used to. This approach is fine, the only problem is
that I was doing it manually not with tools. We need to get those
tools available.
I'll continue to do execution tests.
Ross
