To the best of my knowledge this is good to go. I've not made the suggested change as the file is not in trunk, I'll add it when it is merged with trunk.
Ross On 22 June 2011 10:22, Paul Sharples <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > > -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
