james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Oversized NOTICE for binary distributions (Was: [jsieve] Any more TODO before 0.2 release?)
Date Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:44:36 GMT
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
> 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)
> Geronimo:
> http://www.apache.org/dist/geronimo/2.1.1/geronimo-2.1.1-src.zip
> http://www.apache.org/dist/geronimo/2.1.1/geronimo-framework-2.1.1-bin.zip
> http://www.apache.org/dist/geronimo/2.1.1/geronimo-jetty6-minimal-2.1.1-bin.tar.gz
> You download them you will find they redistribute different jars but they
> ship with the SAME LICENSE/NOTICE file (the one including the most stuff).
> OpenJPA:
> http://www.apache.org/dist/openjpa/1.1.0/apache-openjpa-1.1.0-binary.zip
> http://www.apache.org/dist/openjpa/1.1.0/apache-openjpa-1.1.0-source.zip
> The source package does not include dependencies but LICENSE and NOTICE are
> identical to the one included in the binary package.
> Harmony:
> http://www.apache.org/dist/harmony/milestones/M6/apache-harmony-hdk-r653525-linux-x86-32-snapshot.tar.gz
> http://www.apache.org/dist/harmony/milestones/M6/apache-harmony-src-r653525-snapshot.zip
> 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
> http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/netware/apache_2.0.63_netware.zip
> that surprisingly does not provide a NOTICE file!!
> Tapestry:
> For tapestry again source and binary ships the same files:
> http://www.apache.org/dist/tapestry/tapestry-bin-5.0.13.zip
> http://www.apache.org/dist/tapestry/tapestry-src-5.0.13.zip
> Tomcat:
> http://www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6/v6.0.16/src/apache-tomcat-6.0.16-src.zip
> http://www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6/v6.0.16/bin/apache-tomcat-6.0.16.zip
> 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

no: this a matter for the PMCs and legal affairs

> 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 :-)

no: this a matter for the PMCs and legal affairs

> 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.

why is it a legal issue?

- robert

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

View raw message