On 07/28/2011 11:01 AM, Paul Sharples wrote:
On 28/07/2011 01:17, Ate Douma wrote:
* NOTICE/LICENSE/RUNTIME_LICENSE files in general:
The current ASF policy is that these files only need/should attribute whatever
is actually packaged (note: this equally concerns the svn tree, which in
itself can and should be regarded as a "distribution"). Anything not
"packaged" need (should) not be attributed. These files serve a legal purpose
only, and anything not needed and/or redundant will only make it more
difficult to maintain and validate and properly.
Dependencies not packaged/distributed, but for instance needed (only) for
building is not required to be attributed in these files. If there are
specific (buid/runtime) requirements users should be aware of then those
should be mentioned and explained in additional README, BUILD_NOTES, etc.
files, only.
just to be clear, are you are talking about libraries we have used to build the
(war and standalone) binaries here and so don't need to be mentioned in any of
the licence files. Instead we would explain what is needed in the README,
BUILD_NOTES - and in theory would only be needed to rebuild the source?
Yes, and not just for building but (possibly) even for running.
For instance, the war binary does depend on the servlet/jsp api but those are
assumed (required actually) to be provided by the web container itself. So there
is no need to attribute those, at most only mentioning the version which the war
would depend on (e.g. servlet api 2.5).
For building, you also won't need to specify or even mention every single
dependency (in README/BUILD_NOTES, etc.) if its either transparent or obvious
and won't have any possible license/notice requirements.
An ASF based but external test-harness dependency like jmeter, which would be
automatically be downloaded by Ivy or Maven isn't required to be mentioned
(although it might be nice to give credit), but possibly an automated download
of a mysql jdbc driver (for *testing* purposes only) might require mentioning.
HTH,
Ate
