You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@chemistry.apache.org by Gabriele Columbro <ga...@apache.org> on 2011/03/02 19:05:24 UTC
Is a custom LICENSE.vm needed at all? (was: Re: [VOTE] Release
chemistry-jar-resource-bundle 0.3.0 (RC1))
Hi guys,
as in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-325, I'm wondering
why we need this custom LICENSE.vm (for just a few lines) at all
instead of using the stardard apache-jar-resource-bundle.
Technically speaking, the way we add it to the packages is the proper
one I believe (using the maven-shared-resources-plugin just as any
Maven ASF artifact).
Yes having it SVN would be easy. Maybe not in the LICENSE file. In the
README would work?
I would really just get rid of that custom ASF license file. What do
the others think?
I'm wondering how other ASF projects (with external dependencies) do.
Ciao,
Gab
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Florian Müller
<fl...@alfresco.com> wrote:
> -1
>
> As far as I understand it, this artifact only generates a static file. It is
> much simpler to keep (and maintain if necessary) that file in SVN. This
> artifact only complicates the release process.
>
>
> - Florian
>
>
> On 02/03/2011 14:09, Gabriele Columbro wrote:
>>
>> My dear Chemists,
>> as per https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-325, with this vote
>> I'm asking to:
>>
>> - Validate whether contents (or if at all we are in need) of the
>> custom LICENSE file in all Maven released artifacts.
>> For common memory, we added it for the 0.1.0-incubating release
>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-325)
>> - In case you agree, then you will also voting for release a 0.3.0
>> version of the chemistry-jar-resource-bundle, needed to have a
>> reproducible release process for OpenCMIS 0.3.0 (which depends on this
>> bundle)
>>
>> Please take some time to review this vote since this package is
>> functional to OpenCMIS 0.3.0 TLP release.
>>
>> You can find the Maven artifact (for distribution at
>> repository.apache.org) staged at:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachechemistry-002/org/apache/chemistry/resources/chemistry-jar-resource-bundle/
>>
>> Sources tag can be found at:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/chemistry/chemistry-jar-resource-bundle/tags/chemistry-jar-resource-bundle-0.3.0-RC1/
>>
>> A detail of licensing requirements for ASF release packages can be
>> found at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
>>
>> The vote is open for 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least
>> three +1 Chemistry PMC votes are cast.
>>
>> Please cast your votes!
>>
>> [ ] +1 We need a custom LICENSE in artifacts so proceed with releasing
>> chemistry-jar-resource-bundle 0.3.0
>> [ ] -1 We don't need a custom LICENSE file or Do not release this
>> package because...
>>
>> Thanks in advance for the cooperation.
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Gab
>>
>
>
--
Eng. Gabriele Columbro
Open source and ECM Architect
Alfresco Ltd. - http://www.alfresco.com
-----------------------------------------
http://twitter.com/#!/mindthegabz
-----------------------------------------
"Keyboard not found.
Press F1 to continue"
----------------------------------------
Re: Is a custom LICENSE.vm needed at all? (was: Re: [VOTE] Release
chemistry-jar-resource-bundle 0.3.0 (RC1))
Posted by Gabriele Columbro <ga...@apache.org>.
Hi Jukka,
thanks for the clear answer.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Jukka Zitting <jz...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 03/02/2011 07:05 PM, Gabriele Columbro wrote:
>>
>> Technically speaking, the way we add it to the packages is the proper
>> one I believe (using the maven-shared-resources-plugin just as any
>> Maven ASF artifact).
>
> The main idea behind it is that all release packages should have a LICENSE
> file that includes or at least references the license terms of all IP
> included in that package.
>
> Thus we need to include such extra notes only in jars or other packages that
> include bits that are under other licenses than the ALv2. Most notably Maven
> dependencies need only be mentioned in the LICENSE file if the build embeds
> the dependencies in the resulting build artifact like is done for example in
> the dist and webapp packages.
I will then implement that for:
- All the WARs (referencing the META-INF/DEPENDENCIES file)
- All the commodity packages including 3rd party JARs (referencing the
root level DEPENDENCIES file)
I don't think we need anything specific then for the JARs since they
do not package anything external.
>
>> Yes having it SVN would be easy. Maybe not in the LICENSE file. In the
>> README would work?
>
> All licensing information should be in the LICENSE file. The best place to
> put such notes is in src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE for jar
> archives and in the appropriate other locations for other kinds of archives.
>
> Using a shared resource bundle for this is useful if you'd otherwise end up
> duplicating the same information too many times, but it's probably not worth
> the extra complexity for eliminating just a few duplicates.
I agree with this approach. I reopened
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-325 to work on this,
and should be fairly easy to single source those few lines under the
parent project (since we already have a parentBasedir property in all
POMs).
>
>> I'm wondering how other ASF projects (with external dependencies) do.
>
> See [1] and [2] for how this is done in Jackrabbit for jar and war archives.
> There we explicitly include all the licenses of embedded external
> components, but also just a reference to the relevant license terms would be
> OK.
>
> [1]
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-spi-commons/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE
> [2]
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-webapp/src/main/webapp/META-INF/LICENSE
Thanks for the pointers!
Keep you posted,
Gab
>
> --
> Jukka Zitting
>
--
Eng. Gabriele Columbro
Open source and ECM Architect
Alfresco Ltd. - http://www.alfresco.com
-----------------------------------------
http://twitter.com/#!/mindthegabz
-----------------------------------------
"Keyboard not found.
Press F1 to continue"
----------------------------------------
Re: Is a custom LICENSE.vm needed at all? (was: Re: [VOTE] Release
chemistry-jar-resource-bundle 0.3.0 (RC1))
Posted by Jukka Zitting <jz...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
On 03/02/2011 07:05 PM, Gabriele Columbro wrote:
> Technically speaking, the way we add it to the packages is the proper
> one I believe (using the maven-shared-resources-plugin just as any
> Maven ASF artifact).
The main idea behind it is that all release packages should have a
LICENSE file that includes or at least references the license terms of
all IP included in that package.
Thus we need to include such extra notes only in jars or other packages
that include bits that are under other licenses than the ALv2. Most
notably Maven dependencies need only be mentioned in the LICENSE file if
the build embeds the dependencies in the resulting build artifact like
is done for example in the dist and webapp packages.
> Yes having it SVN would be easy. Maybe not in the LICENSE file. In the
> README would work?
All licensing information should be in the LICENSE file. The best place
to put such notes is in src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE for
jar archives and in the appropriate other locations for other kinds of
archives.
Using a shared resource bundle for this is useful if you'd otherwise end
up duplicating the same information too many times, but it's probably
not worth the extra complexity for eliminating just a few duplicates.
> I'm wondering how other ASF projects (with external dependencies) do.
See [1] and [2] for how this is done in Jackrabbit for jar and war
archives. There we explicitly include all the licenses of embedded
external components, but also just a reference to the relevant license
terms would be OK.
[1]
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-spi-commons/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE
[2]
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-webapp/src/main/webapp/META-INF/LICENSE
--
Jukka Zitting