james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Oversized NOTICE for binary distributions (Was: [jsieve] Any more TODO before 0.2 release?)
Date Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:56:19 GMT
Stefano Bagnara ha scritto:
> David Jencks ha scritto:
>> 2. each artifact distributed from apache must include a LICENSE and 
>> NOTICE file applying to the contents of that artifact.
>>  [...]
> Are we sure that if I include the bigger LICENSE&NOTICE from the one 
> aboves in ALL of our packages I'm breaking #2. In fact my LICENSE&NOTICE 
> from a legal point of view protect us because I'm sure I'm informing the 
> user about the copyrights/license of what I include. I don't see a 
> problem in telling him something more about something I don't include.
> [....]
> I agree that in a perfect world each artifact would have its own perfect 
> NOTICE/LICENSE file, but what I want to understand is what the board say 
> we MUST do and what the board say you SHOULD do that but it is a policy 
> issue and each PMC is entitled to decide this.
> To mantain a LICENSE/NOTICE tuple for each released artifact is a PITA 
> and IMHO unnecessary waste of time.

I'd like to give some references to artifacts being released by other 
PMC. I bet they are not aware they are doing something wrong (if this is 
really something wrong)

You download them you will find they redistribute different jars but 
they ship with the SAME LICENSE/NOTICE file (the one including the most 

The source package does not include dependencies but LICENSE and NOTICE 
are identical to the one included in the binary package.

Big stuff, difficult to tell, but it is weird to think that their 
linux-binary distro and the source distribution contains the same set of 
dependencies but still they have equal NOTICE/LICENSE and a 
THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.txt (?) files.

For httpd you will find the same NOTICE/LICENSE for source distribution 
and for each binary distribution, excluding 
that surprisingly does not provide a NOTICE file!!

For tapestry again source and binary ships the same files:

the same NOTICE/LICENSE for both packages.

If you want to strictly follow #2 rule then all of them will need a 
different NOTICE/LICENSE for each package but as you can see this is an 
extensive list and they all use the same file. If this is really an 
issue for the board and #2 is a rule for the board then the board should 
read this list and take action to allow people understand there is such 
a rule, because WE (ASF committers) are not really aware of all of this 
stuff: we need as few rules as possible, but written somewhere :-)

FWIW I'm much more scared by the missing NOTICE file in the netware 
binary package of httpd than the fact that each of the NOTICE above may 
include sentences not appropriate for the source or the binary package.
*IMHO*: The first is a legal issue, the second is instead a matter of 
style and personal preference.


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

View raw message