james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: [jsieve] Any more TODO before 0.2 release?
Date Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:25:39 GMT
David Jencks ha scritto:
> On Jun 17, 2008, at 4:18 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> David Jencks ha scritto:
>>> The source and binary jars do not include junit so their LICENSE and 
>>> NOTICE files must not include them.  The distro assemblies do include 
>>> them so require a different LICENSE/NOTICE file.  So do the required 
>>> LICENSE/NOTICE files in svn at the checkout root.
>> You say "MUST NOT" include them: I thought it was a "SHOULD NOT", but 
>> maybe the board had different directives?
> I don't think there's total consensus except that what the m-r-r-p used 
> to generate was wrong :-) To me it's unacceptable to distribute a jar 
> with a NOTICE file that any user has to display somewhere claiming that 
> there's say junit included when it is not included, likewise for license 
> files.  They are supposed to be the users guidance as to what is legally 
> going on with the jar they are working with.

Sorry David, I didn't want to mean that if it is an opinion of you it is 
not important :-)

I just wanted to be sure there was no new directives I wasn't aware of, 
so we can give this issue (and I agree this is an issue) the right priority.

>>> For me this would be enough to put the stage repo in a different 
>>> module with separate legal goo files, so that the build requirements 
>>> don't get mixed up so much with the actual apache code in the 
>>> module.  However opinions may differ on this.
>>> Anyway I'm not sure what is breaking and what problems you are seeing.
>> I'm not sure I understand how to place it in a different module, still 
>> create all of our artifacts and have different license/notice files in 
>> each artifact: can you drive me there?
> I don't know how to produce these different legal files in one module 
> except by hardcoding them in each case, so I'm suggesting separating 
> into more than one module: the regular java module can just use the 
> m-r-r-p with the latest resource bundle and no (AFAIK) additions, and 
> the external jars can go in a stage bundle with a hardcoded 
> LICENSE/NOTICE file suitable to the contents.  Maybe I've drunk too much 
> maven kool-aid but I find the mixing of repositories and code rather 
> bizarre.

I would like maven to address this issue someway: are we the only maven 
based project creating the jar, source-jar, javadoc-jar, 
bin-zip-with-runtime-dependencies, src-zip-with-all-dependencies ? I 
don't this so.
The LICENSE/NOTICE for the binary jar is the most simple to do: most 
time it does not include 3rd party code, so maven should IMHO address 
the most complex ones (the LICENSE/NOTICE for big packages including 
some scope of dependencies)

I don't like what you propose (to manually create SOME license/notice 
files for the other packages): IMHO it is worse than creating a single 
NOTICE/LICENSE including the largest set with right references about 
what is an internal dependency, what is a runtime dependency and what is 
needed to build the sources. People reading it will have the option to 
understand that the binary-jar does not really include the build time 
dependencies and we would have a single tuple to review.

Maybe the assembly plugin should support NOTICE/LICENSE 

> I may well be pushing in an inappropriate direction for the project 
> here, so feel free to ignore me or tell me to shut up :-)

David, your feedback is really appreciated and I'm very happy to learn 
new ways to do things. Even if we won't probably delay this jsieve-0.2 
release for this issue I think I will give a try to the multimodule 

What scare me is that maven is an ASF project and after so many years it 
still does not accomplish ASF requirements out of the box. People keep 
finding naive poms and plugin mixtures in order to have the right stuff 
in the right place. E.g: my understanding from the board is that 
LICENSES for every artifact redistributed should be aggregated at the 
bottom of the LICENSE file, instead m-r-r-p puts license references in 
the NOTICE file. I also tried to tell this to maven-dev at the first 
releases of m-r-r-p and the apache bundle but I've been ignored :-(


To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message