commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <>
Subject Re: [math] 2.0 RC1 available for review
Date Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:34:12 GMT
sebb a écrit :
> On 25/07/2009, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
> Sigs OK, but the MD5 and SHA1 hashes are different from usual:
> MD5(commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz)= 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211
> This complicates checking them.
> The normal format is:
> 3117860975931ae8e16d60ece525b211 *commons-math-2.0-RC1.tar.gz
> The NOTICE file still shows 2008.
> Also, the NOTICE file contains some 3rd party licences - these should
> be in the LICENSE file; NOTICE should be for attributions only.

I have looked at other commons components for an example of how to put
all licenses in the LICENSE file. I found none. The only components that
have external attributions in the NOTICE files apart from [math] are the
following ones:

[vfs] states this in the NOTICE file:

  As an optional dependency it uses javamail developed by
  SUN Microsystems
  You can get the library and its source from
  This library uses the CDDL open source license

[codec] states this in the NOTICE file:

test data from

Copyright (C) 2002 Kevin Atkinson ( Verbatim copying
and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium,
provided this notice is preserved.

[el] states this in the NOTICE file:

EL-8 patch - Copyright 2004-2007 Jamie Taylor

[compress] states this in the NOTICE file:

Original BZip2 classes contributed by Keiron Liddle
<>, Aftex Software to the Apache Ant project

Original Tar classes from contributors of the Apache Ant project

Original Zip classes from contributors of the Apache Ant project

Original CPIO classes contributed by Markus Kuss and the jRPM project

All these components put only the Apache license in the LICENSE file,
which seemed fair to me. The dependencies these components have fit well
with either no license text or a small one (a link to the license by
name for [vfs], a single short sentence for [codec]). This is not
sufficient for [math] since we have to put the text of BSD type licenses
for several classes, this is the reason why I put these in the NOTICE
file at first.

It seems strange to me to put a single license file with both our
license and these external licenses. Should these really go in the
LICENSE file or could they be put in a separate file (OTHER-LICENSES or
a name like that) or in several separate files, (LICENSE-lmder,
LICENSE-Heirer, LICENSE-lapack ...) ?


> I think this is a release blocker.
> The packaging of the binary archive looks wrong as well - I don't
> think it should contain Javadoc for the test code, nor the Cobertura
> reports (IIRC these have an incompatible license?). Looks like the
> entire site was accidentally included, as the binary archives are
> huge.
> Also a release blocker IMO.
> The source files use the $Date$ SVN marker, which makes it hard to
> compare the SVN tag with the source archive, as the date is expressed
> in local time. Not a release blocker, but ideally I'd like to see
> these removed at some point.
> Code builds and tests OK for me on Java 1.5 using Ant and Maven2.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>  For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message