You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2004/06/24 21:16:06 UTC
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for
testing
At 01:18 PM 6/24/2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>Graham, silly question. When it deploys as an RPM, do we also copy
>>LICENSE and NOTICE to some appropriate spot? This tripped me in
>>the latest updates - was moving the LICENSE and not NOTICE in the
>>time since that second file was introduced.
>
>Just checked: Neither our RPM nor the Redhat one (on which our RPM was originally based) include either LICENCE or NOTICE.
>
>What directories do these files get installed to normally by Apache's make install?
Heh, maybe they don't. In the win32 installer and build system we drop them
into the target directory, alongside the bin, htdocs, modules directories.
On unix, we do toss LICENSE into $target/manual/ - but we are missing
NOTICE in the build system. Perhaps that's the start (maybe the end)
of fixing this for your rpm?
Where in an httpd install, i'd say alongside. When installing into the /usr/
or /usr/local/ space? that's a good question.
Bill
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Refer to http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html --- especially;
>
> To apply the ALv2 to a new software distribution, include one copy of
> the license text by copying the file:
>
> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt>http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
>
> into a file called LICENSE in the top directory of your distribution.
> If the distribution is a jar or tar file, try to add the LICENSE file first
> in order to place it at the top of the archive.
>
> In addition, a NOTICE file should be included in the same directory as
> the LICENSE file. [...]
> So it seems that burying LICENSE (and NOTICE) within ./manual/ for
> our binary distributions (unpacked into /opt/asf/apache2/ or wherever)
> just doesn't cut it.
I just checked - a normal ./configure ; make ; make install does not
install the NOTICE file anywhere.
In theory the NOTICE file should be installed next to the LICENCE file.
The solution would then be to fix the make install target first - the
RPM spec doesn't install what make install doesn't put there...
Is the missing NOTICE file reason enough to hold up the release of v2.0.50?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for
testing
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Referring to our own license's redistribution requirements;
4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:
* You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
* You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
* You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
* If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.
It's pretty clear that LICENSE and NOTICE must accompany any distribution,
from the ASF or a third party, e.g. an RPM.
Refer to http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html --- especially;
To apply the ALv2 to a new software distribution, include one copy of
the license text by copying the file:
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt>http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
into a file called LICENSE in the top directory of your distribution.
If the distribution is a jar or tar file, try to add the LICENSE file first
in order to place it at the top of the archive.
In addition, a NOTICE file should be included in the same directory as
the LICENSE file. [...]
So it seems that burying LICENSE (and NOTICE) within ./manual/ for
our binary distributions (unpacked into /opt/asf/apache2/ or wherever)
just doesn't cut it.
But obviously, if I'm dropping httpd into /usr/local/ (bin/, lib/, etc) this
would be patently absurd to place LICENSE into /usr/local/. Thoughts?
At 02:16 PM 6/24/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>At 01:18 PM 6/24/2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>Graham, silly question. When it deploys as an RPM, do we also copy
>>>LICENSE and NOTICE to some appropriate spot? This tripped me in
>>>the latest updates - was moving the LICENSE and not NOTICE in the
>>>time since that second file was introduced.
>>
>>Just checked: Neither our RPM nor the Redhat one (on which our RPM was originally based) include either LICENCE or NOTICE.
>>
>>What directories do these files get installed to normally by Apache's make install?
>
>Heh, maybe they don't. In the win32 installer and build system we drop them
>into the target directory, alongside the bin, htdocs, modules directories.
>
>On unix, we do toss LICENSE into $target/manual/ - but we are missing
>NOTICE in the build system. Perhaps that's the start (maybe the end)
>of fixing this for your rpm?
>
>Where in an httpd install, i'd say alongside. When installing into the /usr/
>or /usr/local/ space? that's a good question.
>
>Bill
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Heh, maybe they don't. In the win32 installer and build system we drop them
> into the target directory, alongside the bin, htdocs, modules directories.
>
> On unix, we do toss LICENSE into $target/manual/ - but we are missing
> NOTICE in the build system. Perhaps that's the start (maybe the end)
> of fixing this for your rpm?
>
> Where in an httpd install, i'd say alongside. When installing into the /usr/
> or /usr/local/ space? that's a good question.
Ok, looked again to be sure - the LICENSE file is included, and is
placed in the RPM build inside /usr/share/doc/httpd-2.0.50/LICENSE.
The NOTICE file seems to be missing.
Just building it again to see where the install puts the NOTICE file...
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Heh, maybe they don't. In the win32 installer and build system we drop them
> into the target directory, alongside the bin, htdocs, modules directories.
>
> On unix, we do toss LICENSE into $target/manual/ - but we are missing
> NOTICE in the build system. Perhaps that's the start (maybe the end)
> of fixing this for your rpm?
>
> Where in an httpd install, i'd say alongside. When installing into the /usr/
> or /usr/local/ space? that's a good question.
Ok, looked again to be sure - the LICENSE file is included, and is
placed in the RPM build inside /usr/share/doc/httpd-2.0.50/LICENSE.
The NOTICE file seems to be missing.
Just building it again to see where the install puts the NOTICE file...
Regards,
Graham
--