You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Stefano Bagnara (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2008/06/20 13:53:44 UTC
[jira] Created: (LEGAL-28) LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source,
javadocs, tests jars
LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source, javadocs, tests jars
-------------------------------------------------------
Key: LEGAL-28
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28
Project: Legal Discuss
Issue Type: Question
Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
Most m2 based projects creates multiple jars for each module they release and the resulting jars are published to maven repositories.
Some of them are:
jar: the "standard output", contaiinng binary for the project
source-jar: sources for the classes included in the above jar (for reference, not for build purpose).
javadoc-jar: javadocs about the classes included in the jar
test-jar: tests binary for the jar library
Most m2 projects use org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 resource bundle and creates a very simple LICENSE/NOTICE that is appropriate for the "jar" package, but this file also ends up in the other packages I described.
My concern is: what should we care for?
javadoc-jar: what are the rules for a LICENSE/NOTICE about javadocs? are they equal to the binary classes they document?
source-jar: is there any special rule or the LICENSE/NOTICE that works for the binary is also ok for their java sources?
test-jar: this one seems to deserve a custom LICENSE/NOTICE because it include really something different from the jar: e.g: most project would probably need at least this in the NOTICE:
----------
This product includes/uses software, JUnit (http://www.junit.org/),
developed by Kent Beck, Erich Gamma, and David Saff
License: Common Public License Version 1.0 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php)
---------
Is this paranoia or something we should be care of?
Maybe you already discussed this issue and a policy is already in place, but I didn't find anything in www.apache.org and also with few searches in legal-discuss archives.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-28) LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source,
javadocs, tests jars
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12615409#action_12615409 ]
Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-28:
------------------------------------
I think the LICENSE/NOTICE should be in all of them - such that it is relevant to each. Thus they might have different NOTICEs or LICENSEs.
I would imagine the javadoc jar is a direct copy of the content of the source jar, however it's potentially possible that someone might inject custom css or javascript under a different license.
I don't see any reason to keep this issue open, so will close in 7 days.
> LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source, javadocs, tests jars
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-28
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> Most m2 based projects creates multiple jars for each module they release and the resulting jars are published to maven repositories.
> Some of them are:
> jar: the "standard output", contaiinng binary for the project
> source-jar: sources for the classes included in the above jar (for reference, not for build purpose).
> javadoc-jar: javadocs about the classes included in the jar
> test-jar: tests binary for the jar library
> Most m2 projects use org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 resource bundle and creates a very simple LICENSE/NOTICE that is appropriate for the "jar" package, but this file also ends up in the other packages I described.
> My concern is: what should we care for?
> javadoc-jar: what are the rules for a LICENSE/NOTICE about javadocs? are they equal to the binary classes they document?
> source-jar: is there any special rule or the LICENSE/NOTICE that works for the binary is also ok for their java sources?
> test-jar: this one seems to deserve a custom LICENSE/NOTICE because it include really something different from the jar: e.g: most project would probably need at least this in the NOTICE:
> ----------
> This product includes/uses software, JUnit (http://www.junit.org/),
> developed by Kent Beck, Erich Gamma, and David Saff
> License: Common Public License Version 1.0 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php)
> ---------
> Is this paranoia or something we should be care of?
> Maybe you already discussed this issue and a policy is already in place, but I didn't find anything in www.apache.org and also with few searches in legal-discuss archives.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-28) LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source,
javadocs, tests jars
Posted by "Daniel Kulp (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12606764#action_12606764 ]
Daniel Kulp commented on LEGAL-28:
----------------------------------
To expand on my own comment... there ARE cases where there should be a separate NOTICE file for the test jar. I ran into this when I was looking at Axis 2. In their case, the tests had some wsdl's/schema's that needed attributions in the NOTICE file. Thus, this IS a valid concern, but not the JUnit case you list above.
> LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source, javadocs, tests jars
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-28
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> Most m2 based projects creates multiple jars for each module they release and the resulting jars are published to maven repositories.
> Some of them are:
> jar: the "standard output", contaiinng binary for the project
> source-jar: sources for the classes included in the above jar (for reference, not for build purpose).
> javadoc-jar: javadocs about the classes included in the jar
> test-jar: tests binary for the jar library
> Most m2 projects use org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 resource bundle and creates a very simple LICENSE/NOTICE that is appropriate for the "jar" package, but this file also ends up in the other packages I described.
> My concern is: what should we care for?
> javadoc-jar: what are the rules for a LICENSE/NOTICE about javadocs? are they equal to the binary classes they document?
> source-jar: is there any special rule or the LICENSE/NOTICE that works for the binary is also ok for their java sources?
> test-jar: this one seems to deserve a custom LICENSE/NOTICE because it include really something different from the jar: e.g: most project would probably need at least this in the NOTICE:
> ----------
> This product includes/uses software, JUnit (http://www.junit.org/),
> developed by Kent Beck, Erich Gamma, and David Saff
> License: Common Public License Version 1.0 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php)
> ---------
> Is this paranoia or something we should be care of?
> Maybe you already discussed this issue and a policy is already in place, but I didn't find anything in www.apache.org and also with few searches in legal-discuss archives.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-28) LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source,
javadocs, tests jars
Posted by "Stefano Bagnara (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12606774#action_12606774 ]
Stefano Bagnara commented on LEGAL-28:
--------------------------------------
You are right. Thank you for bringing a better example!
My mind is still used to inlcude references to every dependency in the NOTICE: it will take time to get used to this :-)
> LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source, javadocs, tests jars
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-28
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> Most m2 based projects creates multiple jars for each module they release and the resulting jars are published to maven repositories.
> Some of them are:
> jar: the "standard output", contaiinng binary for the project
> source-jar: sources for the classes included in the above jar (for reference, not for build purpose).
> javadoc-jar: javadocs about the classes included in the jar
> test-jar: tests binary for the jar library
> Most m2 projects use org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 resource bundle and creates a very simple LICENSE/NOTICE that is appropriate for the "jar" package, but this file also ends up in the other packages I described.
> My concern is: what should we care for?
> javadoc-jar: what are the rules for a LICENSE/NOTICE about javadocs? are they equal to the binary classes they document?
> source-jar: is there any special rule or the LICENSE/NOTICE that works for the binary is also ok for their java sources?
> test-jar: this one seems to deserve a custom LICENSE/NOTICE because it include really something different from the jar: e.g: most project would probably need at least this in the NOTICE:
> ----------
> This product includes/uses software, JUnit (http://www.junit.org/),
> developed by Kent Beck, Erich Gamma, and David Saff
> License: Common Public License Version 1.0 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php)
> ---------
> Is this paranoia or something we should be care of?
> Maybe you already discussed this issue and a policy is already in place, but I didn't find anything in www.apache.org and also with few searches in legal-discuss archives.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-28) LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source,
javadocs, tests jars
Posted by "Jukka Zitting (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12615570#action_12615570 ]
Jukka Zitting commented on LEGAL-28:
------------------------------------
For reference, related discussion on legal-discuss: http://markmail.org/message/bttmkavpicxxg7gl
> LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source, javadocs, tests jars
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-28
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> Most m2 based projects creates multiple jars for each module they release and the resulting jars are published to maven repositories.
> Some of them are:
> jar: the "standard output", contaiinng binary for the project
> source-jar: sources for the classes included in the above jar (for reference, not for build purpose).
> javadoc-jar: javadocs about the classes included in the jar
> test-jar: tests binary for the jar library
> Most m2 projects use org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 resource bundle and creates a very simple LICENSE/NOTICE that is appropriate for the "jar" package, but this file also ends up in the other packages I described.
> My concern is: what should we care for?
> javadoc-jar: what are the rules for a LICENSE/NOTICE about javadocs? are they equal to the binary classes they document?
> source-jar: is there any special rule or the LICENSE/NOTICE that works for the binary is also ok for their java sources?
> test-jar: this one seems to deserve a custom LICENSE/NOTICE because it include really something different from the jar: e.g: most project would probably need at least this in the NOTICE:
> ----------
> This product includes/uses software, JUnit (http://www.junit.org/),
> developed by Kent Beck, Erich Gamma, and David Saff
> License: Common Public License Version 1.0 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php)
> ---------
> Is this paranoia or something we should be care of?
> Maybe you already discussed this issue and a policy is already in place, but I didn't find anything in www.apache.org and also with few searches in legal-discuss archives.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-28) LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source,
javadocs, tests jars
Posted by "Daniel Kulp (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12606761#action_12606761 ]
Daniel Kulp commented on LEGAL-28:
----------------------------------
Why would the test jars need that unless you are actually copying JUnit code into your test tree? You aren't shipping the JUnit jar or any junit code. Thus, the NOTICE would not be needed.
Now, should the remote-resources generate a separate "DEPENDECIES" file for the test that includes that? Maybe. But that would be a feature request for remote-resources. There is no legal requirement to have the DEPENDENCIES file there at all.
> LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source, javadocs, tests jars
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-28
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> Most m2 based projects creates multiple jars for each module they release and the resulting jars are published to maven repositories.
> Some of them are:
> jar: the "standard output", contaiinng binary for the project
> source-jar: sources for the classes included in the above jar (for reference, not for build purpose).
> javadoc-jar: javadocs about the classes included in the jar
> test-jar: tests binary for the jar library
> Most m2 projects use org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 resource bundle and creates a very simple LICENSE/NOTICE that is appropriate for the "jar" package, but this file also ends up in the other packages I described.
> My concern is: what should we care for?
> javadoc-jar: what are the rules for a LICENSE/NOTICE about javadocs? are they equal to the binary classes they document?
> source-jar: is there any special rule or the LICENSE/NOTICE that works for the binary is also ok for their java sources?
> test-jar: this one seems to deserve a custom LICENSE/NOTICE because it include really something different from the jar: e.g: most project would probably need at least this in the NOTICE:
> ----------
> This product includes/uses software, JUnit (http://www.junit.org/),
> developed by Kent Beck, Erich Gamma, and David Saff
> License: Common Public License Version 1.0 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php)
> ---------
> Is this paranoia or something we should be care of?
> Maybe you already discussed this issue and a policy is already in place, but I didn't find anything in www.apache.org and also with few searches in legal-discuss archives.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Closed: (LEGAL-28) LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source,
javadocs, tests jars
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Henri Yandell closed LEGAL-28.
------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Commenting a year later - another option would be for the LICENSE/NOTICE file to explicitly list each of the artifacts and describe the items in each. Closing the issue per the 7 days comment a year ago :)
> LICENSE/NOTICE and binary, source, javadocs, tests jars
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-28
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-28
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> Most m2 based projects creates multiple jars for each module they release and the resulting jars are published to maven repositories.
> Some of them are:
> jar: the "standard output", contaiinng binary for the project
> source-jar: sources for the classes included in the above jar (for reference, not for build purpose).
> javadoc-jar: javadocs about the classes included in the jar
> test-jar: tests binary for the jar library
> Most m2 projects use org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 resource bundle and creates a very simple LICENSE/NOTICE that is appropriate for the "jar" package, but this file also ends up in the other packages I described.
> My concern is: what should we care for?
> javadoc-jar: what are the rules for a LICENSE/NOTICE about javadocs? are they equal to the binary classes they document?
> source-jar: is there any special rule or the LICENSE/NOTICE that works for the binary is also ok for their java sources?
> test-jar: this one seems to deserve a custom LICENSE/NOTICE because it include really something different from the jar: e.g: most project would probably need at least this in the NOTICE:
> ----------
> This product includes/uses software, JUnit (http://www.junit.org/),
> developed by Kent Beck, Erich Gamma, and David Saff
> License: Common Public License Version 1.0 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php)
> ---------
> Is this paranoia or something we should be care of?
> Maybe you already discussed this issue and a policy is already in place, but I didn't find anything in www.apache.org and also with few searches in legal-discuss archives.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org