We dont bundle all of AMQ to prevent bloating the distribution with things
that are not normally used. Same reason why we dont package all of uima sdk
with the uima-as. Including all jars from AMQ will certainly bloat the
LICENSE and NOTICE files.

If the release is voted down, I will remove references to jars not included
in the distribution, make some comments in the documentation about what
parts of AMQ we support and also make a recommendation about what to do in
case there is missing functionality in the AMQ we ship with UIMA-AS.

Jerry

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Lou DeGenaro <lou.degenaro@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Why do we feel the need to edit the AMQ distribution rather than include it
> and its Notice and License information in its entirety?  If we think a
> lighter weight AMQ distribution is desirable, any chance of get the AMQ
> folks to provide such instead of us hacking?
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho <
> rec@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Marshall. The NOTICE/LICENSE files should reflect what
> > is actually inside a JAR/ZIP and non-applicable parts should - if
> feasible
> > -
> > be removed.
> >
> > That said, the LICENSE/NOTICE files e.g. from the Spring distribution are
> > also
> > usually shooting beyond the goal and make references to third-party code
> > that
> > may or may not be in a particular artifact... and all artifacts contain
> the
> > same notices/licenses.
> >
> > In the case of Spring, I find it not particularly practicable to figure
> out
> > what is relevant and what not.
> >
> > But here, specific parts seem to be clearly assignable to specific
> > non-packaged JARs,
> > so it appears to be practicable to be more accurate.
> >
> > -- Richard
> >
> > > On 26.04.2016, at 23:03, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's a summary (please correct if wrong):
> > >
> > > There are two "optional" JARs not distributed with UIMA-AS have license
> > and
> > > (partial) notice info in the uima-as LICENSE/NOTICE files.
> > >
> > > One of the value propositions that lets others make use of our
> > technology is the
> > > reputation we maintain about our always somewhat imperfect attempts at
> > having
> > > accurate license and notice files.  I would prefer that we strive to
> > keep our
> > > reputation where it is by removing the license and partial notice for
> > these
> > > JARs, and perhaps adding some documentation (if needed) specifying what
> > JARs can
> > > be optionally downloaded (from ActiveMQ distribution) for providing
> > additional
> > > functionality, not provided out of the box by the UIMA-AS binary
> > distribution.
> > >
> > > Having said that, if the others on the PMC feel that this flaw (having
> > extra
> > > licenses and extra (partial) notices not needed is OK for releasing, I
> > won't
> > > stand in the way.
> > >
> > > I'll do a bit more testing, and then if nothing more is found, vote -0
> to
> > > indicate this.
> > >
> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >
> > > -Marshall
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/26/2016 11:05 AM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote:
> > >> Thanks Marshall. Just to provide more context for the problems found
> > >>
> > >> The JmDNS seems to be part of auto discovery of network of brokers via
> > >> unicast instead of hard coded URLs.  This is not part of standard
> > uima-as
> > >> configuration we distribute. When such functionality is needed users
> may
> > >> download their own copy of AMQ and use that. Of course there is an
> > issue of
> > >> having this jar documented in LICENSE and NOTICE but not present in
> the
> > >> distribution.
> > >>
> > >> The second one jasypt is providing encryption and decryption of user
> > >> credentials per: http://activemq.apache.org/encrypted-passwords.html.
> I
> > >> think the lack of this jar can also be dealt with the same way as
> above.
> > >>
> > >> Given the above I will await your vote. One way or the other I need
> your
> > >> vote to proceed. Seems like quality of the distribution mandates RC3
> > vote
> > >> down.
> > >>
> > >> Jerry
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Although others may be voting +1 to release, just to be clear, I'm
> > >>> currently -1
> > >>> until the license / notice issues mentioned above are resolved.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Marshall
> >
> >
>