You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@sling.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> on 2008/06/11 09:40:32 UTC
License and notice files
Hi,
I reverted our notice files to hand edited versions and updated them. I
added some missing information and license files.
The launchpad app and webapp have the aggregated information of the
included bundles/jar and the root of our source tree has the aggregated
information of all bundles we want to release.
The only thing I could find is the information about the text
extractors. This has to be added to the jackrabbit server module, the
launchpad app and the root of the source tree.
It would be great if some people could check everything, so that we're
safe for our upcomming release. Please keep in mind that if you change
something in a bundle that you reflect the changes in launchpad
app/webapp and the root of the source tree. But I think with peer review
of the changes this shouldn't really be a problem.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Hi,
yes, I was not sure about the Derby/Xerces stuff. If you think that we
need all of this, please go ahead and make the changes.
Thanks
Carsten
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>> It would be great if some people could check everything, so that we're safe
>> for our upcomming release.
>
> There's FeedParser license information at the end of trunk/LICENSE. If
> we use LICENSE.* files for non-ALv2 licenses, then we should put that
> into LICENSE.feedparser.
>
> Also, note that for example Derby and Xerces come with extra NOTICE
> entries that we should include at least in the binary packages.
>
> Derby:
>
> Portions of Derby were originally developed by International Business
> Machines Corporation and are licensed to the Apache Software Foundation
> under the "Software Grant and Corporate Contribution License Agreement",
> informally known as the "Derby CLA". The following copyright notice(s) were
> affixed to portions of the code with which this file is now or was at one
> time distributed and are placed here unaltered.
>
> (C) Copyright 1997,2004 International Business Machines Corporation.
> All rights reserved.
>
> (C) Copyright IBM Corp. 2003.
>
> Xerces:
>
> Portions of this software were originally based on the following:
> - software copyright (c) 1999, IBM Corporation., http://www.ibm.com.
> - software copyright (c) 1999, Sun Microsystems., http://www.sun.com.
> - voluntary contributions made by Paul Eng on behalf of the
> Apache Software Foundation that were originally developed at
> iClick, Inc.,
> software copyright (c) 1999.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> PS. Of course, we could do just a source release to get started... :-)
>
> Once again, with feeling... the ASF only does source releases.
Sure, but as long as Carsten plans to publish also the binary packages
we should make sure that those binaries come with proper LICENSE and
NOTICE files.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Karl Pauls <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Karl Pauls <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>> b) Should we include "Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org" in trunk/NOTICE?
>>>>
>>> Hmm, Roy says we don't have to (at least this is what I understood during
>>> the whole discussion) - but lets add it.
>>
>> I think we still need to keep the attribution as far as I understand
>> his last mail...
>
> This is also my understanding, i.e. we should include the attribution in NOTICE.
>
>>>> d) Many of the generated bundles don't have complete NOTICE files (for
>>>> example commons.log doesn't mention SLF4J even though SLF4J classes
>>>> are included), but I wouldn't treat that as a blocker as the bundles
>>>> are secondary release artifacts and the required information is still
>>>> available in the LICENSE.* files.
>>>
>>> Great. Again these are things where Roy said we don't need them.
>>
>> Again, I think for the binaries we do need the attribution and the
>> LICENSE files because we don't embed the complete jar's. We only
>> include some of the code -- hence, the original NOTICE and LICENSE
>> files are not included in the resulting artifact and needs to be added
>> by us.
>
> We already explicitly included the LICENSE file (LICENSE.slf4j in the
> example), so the question is whether we also need to include the
> copyright attribution in NOTICE. It's essentially the same question as
> above with JSON: should the copyright attribution go to NOTICE even if
> the third party license doesn't mandate where in a release the
> attribution should be?
I think attribution should go in the NOTICE. Not doing that is
confusing and really blurs the distinction between LICENSE and NOTICE
file imo.
regards,
Karl
> The source header and copyright notice policy says: "The remainder of
> the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party notices."
> (http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
--
Karl Pauls
karlpauls@gmail.com
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> This is also my understanding, i.e. we should include the attribution in
>> NOTICE.
>
> Ok, so please go ahead and just add it - i'm fine with that.
OK.
> Actually if we can have everything at a single place seems to be easier for
> me. If you could just add the stuff, that would be great.
OK, I'll do that.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
> This is also my understanding, i.e. we should include the attribution in NOTICE.
>
Ok, so please go ahead and just add it - i'm fine with that.
>
> We already explicitly included the LICENSE file (LICENSE.slf4j in the
> example), so the question is whether we also need to include the
> copyright attribution in NOTICE. It's essentially the same question as
> above with JSON: should the copyright attribution go to NOTICE even if
> the third party license doesn't mandate where in a release the
> attribution should be?
>
> The source header and copyright notice policy says: "The remainder of
> the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party notices."
> (http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
Actually if we can have everything at a single place seems to be easier
for me. If you could just add the stuff, that would be great.
Thanks
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Karl Pauls <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>> b) Should we include "Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org" in trunk/NOTICE?
>>>
>> Hmm, Roy says we don't have to (at least this is what I understood during
>> the whole discussion) - but lets add it.
>
> I think we still need to keep the attribution as far as I understand
> his last mail...
This is also my understanding, i.e. we should include the attribution in NOTICE.
>>> d) Many of the generated bundles don't have complete NOTICE files (for
>>> example commons.log doesn't mention SLF4J even though SLF4J classes
>>> are included), but I wouldn't treat that as a blocker as the bundles
>>> are secondary release artifacts and the required information is still
>>> available in the LICENSE.* files.
>>
>> Great. Again these are things where Roy said we don't need them.
>
> Again, I think for the binaries we do need the attribution and the
> LICENSE files because we don't embed the complete jar's. We only
> include some of the code -- hence, the original NOTICE and LICENSE
> files are not included in the resulting artifact and needs to be added
> by us.
We already explicitly included the LICENSE file (LICENSE.slf4j in the
example), so the question is whether we also need to include the
copyright attribution in NOTICE. It's essentially the same question as
above with JSON: should the copyright attribution go to NOTICE even if
the third party license doesn't mandate where in a release the
attribution should be?
The source header and copyright notice policy says: "The remainder of
the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party notices."
(http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>> ...d) Many of the generated bundles don't have complete NOTICE files (for
>>> example commons.log doesn't mention SLF4J even though SLF4J classes
>>> are included), but I wouldn't treat that as a blocker as the bundles
>>> are secondary release artifacts and the required information is still
>>> available in the LICENSE.* files.
>>
>> Great. Again these are things where Roy said we don't need them....
>
> Jukka, are you talking about the NOTICE files under
> src/main/resources, i.e. the ones that get included in the binary
> artifacts?
Yes.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> a) Some LICENSE files refer to feedparser tests, but I couldn't find
> them anywhere. Is the reference needed?
I grepped the whole tree for related files, but couldn't find any. So
I removed the license entries in revision 668122.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Karl Pauls <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> b) Should we include "Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org" in trunk/NOTICE?
>
> I think we have to if we have json code in trunk (not sure that this
> is still the case?).
It is. I added the NOTICE references in revision 668119.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> ...d) Many of the generated bundles don't have complete NOTICE files (for
>> example commons.log doesn't mention SLF4J even though SLF4J classes
>> are included), but I wouldn't treat that as a blocker as the bundles
>> are secondary release artifacts and the required information is still
>> available in the LICENSE.* files.
>
> Great. Again these are things where Roy said we don't need them....
Jukka, are you talking about the NOTICE files under
src/main/resources, i.e. the ones that get included in the binary
artifacts?
If that's the case, IIUC the NOTICE is required if the binary bundle
that we distributes include bits from SLF4J, and if SLF4J requires
redistributions to include attribution. I don't know if that's the
case.
-Bertrand
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Karl Pauls <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>
>> HI,
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before cutting
>>> a
>>> release.
>>
>> Looks pretty good. Some comments:
>>
>> a) Some LICENSE files refer to feedparser tests, but I couldn't find
>> them anywhere. Is the reference needed?
>
> No, its a copy-paste error :(
>
>>
>> b) Should we include "Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org" in trunk/NOTICE?
>>
> Hmm, Roy says we don't have to (at least this is what I understood during
> the whole discussion) - but lets add it.
I think we still need to keep the attribution as far as I understand
his last mail...
>> c) AFAIUI the year in "Copyright ... The Apache Software Foundation"
>> statements should be "2008", not "2007-2008". See related discussion
>> on dev@jackrabbit. Not a blocker IMO.
>
> Yes, this is another one of those discussions :) I'll change all of them to
> 2008.
>
>>
>> d) Many of the generated bundles don't have complete NOTICE files (for
>> example commons.log doesn't mention SLF4J even though SLF4J classes
>> are included), but I wouldn't treat that as a blocker as the bundles
>> are secondary release artifacts and the required information is still
>> available in the LICENSE.* files.
>
> Great. Again these are things where Roy said we don't need them.
Again, I think for the binaries we do need the attribution and the
LICENSE files because we don't embed the complete jar's. We only
include some of the code -- hence, the original NOTICE and LICENSE
files are not included in the resulting artifact and needs to be added
by us.
>>
>> e) The LICENSE files don't have references to the LICENSE.* files. Roy
>> says they should. If we place references in LICENSE, I think we could
>> just as well put the entire license texts there.
>
> I would go with a reference.
Including the LICENSE.* files and adding references in the LICENSE
file feels a bit strange - it seems easier to just put the entire
license texts there...
regards,
Karl
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
>
--
Karl Pauls
karlpauls@gmail.com
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Karl Pauls <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> HI,
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>> So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before cutting a
>> release.
>
> Looks pretty good. Some comments:
>
> a) Some LICENSE files refer to feedparser tests, but I couldn't find
> them anywhere. Is the reference needed?
>
> b) Should we include "Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org" in trunk/NOTICE?
I think we have to if we have json code in trunk (not sure that this
is still the case?).
> c) AFAIUI the year in "Copyright ... The Apache Software Foundation"
> statements should be "2008", not "2007-2008". See related discussion
> on dev@jackrabbit. Not a blocker IMO.
>
> d) Many of the generated bundles don't have complete NOTICE files (for
> example commons.log doesn't mention SLF4J even though SLF4J classes
> are included), but I wouldn't treat that as a blocker as the bundles
> are secondary release artifacts and the required information is still
> available in the LICENSE.* files.
Well, I think that is not optimal. If the bundle artifact contains
code under a license that mandates a NOTICE then it should be in the
NOTICE file of the binary.
> e) The LICENSE files don't have references to the LICENSE.* files. Roy
> says they should. If we place references in LICENSE, I think we could
> just as well put the entire license texts there.
I think that makes sense - the LICENSE.* files are somewhat none
standard and probably not really supported by downstream tools.
regards,
Karl
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
--
Karl Pauls
karlpauls@gmail.com
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Karl Pauls <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>
>> Revision 668065 looks good to me.
>
> Great, thanks Bertrand.
>
> So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before cutting a
> release. Jukka? Roy?
>
> (Please note that we're currently waiting for a release of the Felix SCR
> module, the vote period is open but there are only two votes yet...)
I will look at it tonight (i have been away last week).
regards,
Karl
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
>
--
Karl Pauls
karlpauls@gmail.com
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jukka?
Looking at it now.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> HI,
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>> So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before cutting a
>> release.
>
> Looks pretty good. Some comments:
>
> a) Some LICENSE files refer to feedparser tests, but I couldn't find
> them anywhere. Is the reference needed?
No, its a copy-paste error :(
>
> b) Should we include "Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org" in trunk/NOTICE?
>
Hmm, Roy says we don't have to (at least this is what I understood
during the whole discussion) - but lets add it.
> c) AFAIUI the year in "Copyright ... The Apache Software Foundation"
> statements should be "2008", not "2007-2008". See related discussion
> on dev@jackrabbit. Not a blocker IMO.
Yes, this is another one of those discussions :) I'll change all of them
to 2008.
>
> d) Many of the generated bundles don't have complete NOTICE files (for
> example commons.log doesn't mention SLF4J even though SLF4J classes
> are included), but I wouldn't treat that as a blocker as the bundles
> are secondary release artifacts and the required information is still
> available in the LICENSE.* files.
Great. Again these are things where Roy said we don't need them.
>
> e) The LICENSE files don't have references to the LICENSE.* files. Roy
> says they should. If we place references in LICENSE, I think we could
> just as well put the entire license texts there.
I would go with a reference.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
HI,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before cutting a
> release.
Looks pretty good. Some comments:
a) Some LICENSE files refer to feedparser tests, but I couldn't find
them anywhere. Is the reference needed?
b) Should we include "Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org" in trunk/NOTICE?
c) AFAIUI the year in "Copyright ... The Apache Software Foundation"
statements should be "2008", not "2007-2008". See related discussion
on dev@jackrabbit. Not a blocker IMO.
d) Many of the generated bundles don't have complete NOTICE files (for
example commons.log doesn't mention SLF4J even though SLF4J classes
are included), but I wouldn't treat that as a blocker as the bundles
are secondary release artifacts and the required information is still
available in the LICENSE.* files.
e) The LICENSE files don't have references to the LICENSE.* files. Roy
says they should. If we place references in LICENSE, I think we could
just as well put the entire license texts there.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...I've changed the handling of the notice/licence files as discussed recently.
>> Each module has now a readme as well....
>
> Thanks - I think the NOTICE files added under
> src/main/resources/META-INF are what my SLING-493 aimed to generate,
> but with Roy's explanations it is now clear why we disagreed on what
> needs to be there.
>
Yes, it took me some time do understand this as well :)
But now we are the first Java project at Apache doing it this way (at
least I don't know of any other - but I don't know all of them...)
>> ...So I think it's time to review this stuff and fix what needs to be fixed for
>> a release. I hope we get through all of this by monday and can finally
>> release Sling :)...
>
> Revision 668065 looks good to me, except launchpad/jcrapp/NOTICE which
> still contains a TODO.
>
Ah yes, thanks - we won't release jcrapp in our first release, that's
why I didn't cover it. I just made some minor updates, but we have to
check everything for the first release of jcrapp.
Thanks!
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: License and notice files
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before
> cutting a release. Jukka? Roy?
I was on my way to Basel ... I haven't checked all the files, but the
commits looked fine and I don't see any reason to hold up the release
vote. Any further issues can be fixed in a future release.
BTW, I am not (officially) a committer on Sling and generally try to
avoid abusing my infrastructure karma unless it is for necessary
documentation/licensing/infra work.
....Roy
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Revision 668065 looks good to me.
Great, thanks Bertrand.
So I would like to hear a final comment from Jukka and Roy before
cutting a release. Jukka? Roy?
(Please note that we're currently waiting for a release of the Felix SCR
module, the vote period is open but there are only two votes yet...)
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...I've changed the handling of the notice/licence files as discussed recently.
> Each module has now a readme as well....
Thanks - I think the NOTICE files added under
src/main/resources/META-INF are what my SLING-493 aimed to generate,
but with Roy's explanations it is now clear why we disagreed on what
needs to be there.
> ...So I think it's time to review this stuff and fix what needs to be fixed for
> a release. I hope we get through all of this by monday and can finally
> release Sling :)...
Revision 668065 looks good to me, except launchpad/jcrapp/NOTICE which
still contains a TODO.
-Bertrand
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I've changed the handling of the notice/licence files as discussed
recently. Each module has now a readme as well.
So I think it's time to review this stuff and fix what needs to be fixed
for a release. I hope we get through all of this by monday and can
finally release Sling :)
Most of the modules should be fine as they just contain Apache stuff.
The most problematik ones are the binary versions of the launchpad.
I haven't added links to additional licences yet as I'm not sure how to
do this best. So if someone wants to do this, please go ahead.
Thanks
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: License and notice files
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jun 13, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> - The src/main/resources/META-INF(LICENSE file has no reference
>> to the LICENSE.slf4j file
>
> The LICENSE.* files seem pretty obvious, so I'm not sure if the
> reference is really needed. I'd say we either leave it as is (no
> references), or include all the license information in the single
> LICENSE file.
The LICENSE file needs to answer the question: what is the license for
this bundle/compilation as a redistributable unit? You should assume
that it will be taken out of context (printed or included in third-party
docs), so the fact that there are other files nearby is not sufficient.
I would list them by reference. httpd includes them in one big file.
>>
>> - The src/main/resources/META-INF/NOTICE file contains an
>> attribution of the SLF4J libraries. As I can see no requirement
>> for such an attribution, I am not sure, whether this is required ?
>
> The license calls for the "copyright notice [...] shall be included in
> all copies or substantial portions of the Software", and AFAIUI (and I
> may be wrong) the NOTICE file is the place for such copyright notices
> even when they are also included in the LICENSE file.
The NOTICE file is only supposed to contain attributions that
are relevant to the package. The board made a mess of that when
they added the collation copyright notice. However, since the license
states that irrelevant notices can be removed from the NOTICE file,
we only need to include the words that remain relevant to the
distributed work. For example, the Jetty and Derby stuff can be trimmed
down to just the attributions -- the rest is actually present in the
Derby and Jetty jar files and need not be repeated outside.
I meant to do that today, but ran out of time (it's past 2am here).
....Roy
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In Rev. 667038 I just commited a proposal to commons/log bundle [1] to
> what we have been discussing:
Looks good.
> - The disclaimer is not part of the README.txt (yet), maybe
> this should be added as a section there replacing the existing
> DISCLAIMER file ?
+1
> - The src/main/resources/META-INF(LICENSE file has no reference
> to the LICENSE.slf4j file
The LICENSE.* files seem pretty obvious, so I'm not sure if the
reference is really needed. I'd say we either leave it as is (no
references), or include all the license information in the single
LICENSE file.
> - The src/main/resources/META-INF/NOTICE file contains an
> attribution of the SLF4J libraries. As I can see no requirement
> for such an attribution, I am not sure, whether this is required ?
The license calls for the "copyright notice [...] shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software", and AFAIUI (and I
may be wrong) the NOTICE file is the place for such copyright notices
even when they are also included in the LICENSE file.
PS. I looked at doing the same for the launchpad app and webapp
components. Do we really need the separate -bin packaging, or could we
just use the normal jar and war artifacts as the binary packages to go
with the release?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
In Rev. 667038 I just commited a proposal to commons/log bundle [1] to
what we have been discussing:
The README.txt file is adapted from the README.txt file
of the Jackrabbit API project.
The top level LICENSE and NOTICE files only pertain to the
source code itself, which contains no 3rd party code
The LICENSE and NOTICE files to be contained in the binary
package are moved to the src/main/resources/META-INF folder
and will be packaged as normal project resources
Missing links for now:
- The disclaimer is not part of the README.txt (yet), maybe
this should be added as a section there replacing the existing
DISCLAIMER file ?
- The src/main/resources/META-INF(LICENSE file has no reference
to the LICENSE.slf4j file
- The src/main/resources/META-INF/NOTICE file contains an
attribution of the SLF4J libraries. As I can see no requirement
for such an attribution, I am not sure, whether this is required ?
Regards
Felix
[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/sling/trunk/commons/log
Am Donnerstag, den 12.06.2008, 09:18 +0200 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler:
> I just talked with Felix offline about this and we came up with the
> following solution which should meet the requirements.
>
> As Roy points out we have to distinguish between source and binary
> distributions (and yes, the ASF does only source releases, I know,
> however for convenience we're creating binary artifacts as well).
>
> We'll change the NOTICE/LICENCE files in the root ouf the source tree to
> just mention the stuff contained in the source - in most cases this is
> just Apache code, except the json stuff. Please note that we still will
> have a NOTICE/LICENCE pair in the root of each bundle directory as we'll
> have separate releases of bundles in the future.
>
> In addition we will add a NOTICE/LICENCE file for each bundle under the
> src/main/resource/META-INF that contains the appropriate info for the
> binary releases.
>
> There are different opinions about the DISCLAIMER - some people say it's
> sufficient to have them in a README, some people claim it must be a file
> named DISCLAIMER - anyways, the incubator docs say it must be
> "somewhere", so we'll move this into a readme file in the root directory
> and add the DISCLAIMER file to META-INF for binary releases.
>
> Finally we'll try to add meaningfull readme files to each bundle,
> although the current pom's already have some information (might not be
> perfect though).
>
> Everyone ok with this approach?
>
> Carsten
>
Re: License and notice files
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jun 12, 2008, at 12:18 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> I just talked with Felix offline about this and we came up with the
> following solution which should meet the requirements.
>
> As Roy points out we have to distinguish between source and binary
> distributions (and yes, the ASF does only source releases, I know,
> however for convenience we're creating binary artifacts as well).
>
> We'll change the NOTICE/LICENCE files in the root ouf the source
> tree to just mention the stuff contained in the source - in most
> cases this is just Apache code, except the json stuff. Please note
> that we still will have a NOTICE/LICENCE pair in the root of each
> bundle directory as we'll have separate releases of bundles in the
> future.
>
> In addition we will add a NOTICE/LICENCE file for each bundle under
> the src/main/resource/META-INF that contains the appropriate info
> for the binary releases.
Sounds good to me.
> There are different opinions about the DISCLAIMER - some people say
> it's sufficient to have them in a README, some people claim it must
> be a file named DISCLAIMER - anyways, the incubator docs say it
> must be "somewhere", so we'll move this into a readme file in the
> root directory and add the DISCLAIMER file to META-INF for binary
> releases.
This is the first time I've seen any files called DISCLAIMER.
Maybe that's a byproduct of people using RAT? README is sufficient.
I personally think only one is required (in the source release).
BTW, wherever I say README or NOTICE or LICENSE, feel free to name
the actual files README.txt or NOTICE.txt or LICENSE.txt -- the file
extension does not effect its legitimacy (and helps many systems).
> Finally we'll try to add meaningfull readme files to each bundle,
> although the current pom's already have some information (might not
> be perfect though).
Please just focus on the main README for now. The bundles need some
basic info on why they exist, but not much else.
> Everyone ok with this approach?
+1
....Roy
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 12.06.2008, 09:18 +0200 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler:
> I just talked with Felix offline about this and we came up with the
> following solution which should meet the requirements.
>
> As Roy points out we have to distinguish between source and binary
> distributions (and yes, the ASF does only source releases, I know,
> however for convenience we're creating binary artifacts as well).
>
> We'll change the NOTICE/LICENCE files in the root ouf the source tree to
> just mention the stuff contained in the source - in most cases this is
> just Apache code, except the json stuff. Please note that we still will
> have a NOTICE/LICENCE pair in the root of each bundle directory as we'll
> have separate releases of bundles in the future.
>
> In addition we will add a NOTICE/LICENCE file for each bundle under the
> src/main/resource/META-INF that contains the appropriate info for the
> binary releases.
plus: we only list required attributions in the NOTICE files
plus: we add LICENSE.xxx files for included inclued 3rd party libs
(if required)
plus: we refer to the LICENSE.xxx files in the LICENSE file
> There are different opinions about the DISCLAIMER - some people say it's
> sufficient to have them in a README, some people claim it must be a file
> named DISCLAIMER - anyways, the incubator docs say it must be
> "somewhere", so we'll move this into a readme file in the root directory
> and add the DISCLAIMER file to META-INF for binary releases.
>
> Finally we'll try to add meaningfull readme files to each bundle,
> although the current pom's already have some information (might not be
> perfect though).
>
> Everyone ok with this approach?
+1
Regards
Felix
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
I just talked with Felix offline about this and we came up with the
following solution which should meet the requirements.
As Roy points out we have to distinguish between source and binary
distributions (and yes, the ASF does only source releases, I know,
however for convenience we're creating binary artifacts as well).
We'll change the NOTICE/LICENCE files in the root ouf the source tree to
just mention the stuff contained in the source - in most cases this is
just Apache code, except the json stuff. Please note that we still will
have a NOTICE/LICENCE pair in the root of each bundle directory as we'll
have separate releases of bundles in the future.
In addition we will add a NOTICE/LICENCE file for each bundle under the
src/main/resource/META-INF that contains the appropriate info for the
binary releases.
There are different opinions about the DISCLAIMER - some people say it's
sufficient to have them in a README, some people claim it must be a file
named DISCLAIMER - anyways, the incubator docs say it must be
"somewhere", so we'll move this into a readme file in the root directory
and add the DISCLAIMER file to META-INF for binary releases.
Finally we'll try to add meaningfull readme files to each bundle,
although the current pom's already have some information (might not be
perfect though).
Everyone ok with this approach?
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: License and notice files
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jun 11, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:46 AM, Roy T. Fielding
> <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> I am struggling to understand what is going on here. LICENSE and
>> NOTICE
>> refer to the copyrightable material in *this* package. Surely we
>> don't
>> distribute Derby and Xerces in *this* package, do we? Jetty? WTF?
>
> We do. The tricky thing with Maven is that even though the source
> release doesn't contain the dependencies, the build result still ends
> up containing them. Thus we have things like the Sling app and Sling
> webapp binaries that come with all the dependencies inside them.
Like I said, what happens after you run maven has nothing to do with
the contents of NOTICE and LICENSE in our subversion, which only
refers to the source release. We cannot place restrictions on
downstream consumers of our source code that do not exist in the
source -- that would be releasing our own work under non-AL licenses.
> Also, to make matters even more interesting, AFAIK the plan is to also
> make each individual bundle artifact (some with, some without included
> dependencies) available in the Maven repository, so we should have
> proper NOTICEs also for those bits.
Well, whoever puts them there had better obey the required licenses
of whatever is redistributed. I wish we could just write a script
that generates all of these silly bundles instead of populating the
repository with deep trees.
> I raised the generic issue on legal-discuss@ (see [1]) to gather
> feedback on how to best handle that complexity.
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/bttmkavpicxxg7gl
>
> PS. Of course, we could do just a source release to get started... :-)
Once again, with feeling... the ASF only does source releases.
All these binaries that you are creating are just things that
you release, not the ASF. The LICENSE and NOTICE files will
be different in each of those binaries. If we need to manage
them within the source tree, then they should be clearly delineated
from the source NOTICE/LICENSE files. I would put them inside
the build script itself, but I guess the bundle manifest
resource directories would do just as well.
In any case, it should not be so hard for me to figure out what
the Sling release is supposed to contain. I am not kidding.
An Apache release requires documentation on what it is and how
the user is expected to build it and then how to get started.
That means translating the interesting selection of random wiki
notes into at least one README that explains what this bag of
bits is intended to do, how to build it, an idea on first steps,
and links to the published website for more information.
Right now we only have a short "run maven" instruction and
a link to some out-of-date wiki discussion. I wish I could
write something up and commit it for the project, but that's
beyond my level of clue this week (and I've got too much else
to do before my trip to Basel this weekend).
....Roy
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:46 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> I am struggling to understand what is going on here. LICENSE and NOTICE
> refer to the copyrightable material in *this* package. Surely we don't
> distribute Derby and Xerces in *this* package, do we? Jetty? WTF?
We do. The tricky thing with Maven is that even though the source
release doesn't contain the dependencies, the build result still ends
up containing them. Thus we have things like the Sling app and Sling
webapp binaries that come with all the dependencies inside them.
Also, to make matters even more interesting, AFAIK the plan is to also
make each individual bundle artifact (some with, some without included
dependencies) available in the Maven repository, so we should have
proper NOTICEs also for those bits.
I raised the generic issue on legal-discuss@ (see [1]) to gather
feedback on how to best handle that complexity.
[1] http://markmail.org/message/bttmkavpicxxg7gl
PS. Of course, we could do just a source release to get started... :-)
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: License and notice files
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jun 11, 2008, at 1:33 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler
> <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>> It would be great if some people could check everything, so that
>> we're safe
>> for our upcomming release.
>
> There's FeedParser license information at the end of trunk/LICENSE. If
> we use LICENSE.* files for non-ALv2 licenses, then we should put that
> into LICENSE.feedparser.
>
> Also, note that for example Derby and Xerces come with extra NOTICE
> entries that we should include at least in the binary packages.
I am struggling to understand what is going on here. LICENSE and NOTICE
refer to the copyrightable material in *this* package. Surely we don't
distribute Derby and Xerces in *this* package, do we? Jetty? WTF?
Just to be clear, LICENSE and NOTICE have nothing whatsoever to do
with dependencies or what might happen after the user downloads the
source code and runs "mvn install". Those files exist to define the
licensing conditions on redistribution of *these* bits and nothing more.
Maven downloads are separate distributions under their own licenses.
The LICENSE and NOTICE files always have some scope. The scope of the
ones under trunk in subversion are the contents of the code under that
trunk. Sometimes they include additional notices for the source
code of libraries that are not directly in subversion but are always
added by the RM prior to generating the *source* release package, so
that the RM doesn't need to collate it after the tag.
If additional binary packages are created, they will each have their own
LICENSE and NOTICE that are specific to the contents of that package.
If this is a common occurrence, then it is a good idea to have some
part of the project's subversion space dedicated to storing the
binary packaging build instructions and corresponding NOTICE/LICENSE
for each such package.
When a larger package includes code (not dependencies -- actual
copyrighted bits) from some other licensed source, then the license
on that foreign source must be obeyed. How that is accomplished is
often specific to what parts of the source are included. If the
license on those bits is different from the Apache License, that
must be noted in the LICENSE file by inclusion or by reference
to the associated license file location within the same package.
Required attributions that remain applicable to the final package
must be noted in the NOTICE file. Note that this does not include
any notices that are not required, any notices that are not relevant
to the parts of the foreign source that will be included in
this package, nor any notices for packages that are merely
dependencies and not actually included in *this* package.
I've tried to review the files, but how can I? There is no
documentation in the README or on the website or on the wiki
that tells me what is being included in the release and why.
fielding@kiwi% find . -name .svn -prune -o -name NOTICE\* -print
./api/NOTICE
./commons/json/NOTICE
./commons/log/NOTICE
./commons/mime/NOTICE
./commons/osgi/NOTICE
./commons/scheduler/NOTICE
./commons/testing/NOTICE
./commons/threads/NOTICE
./engine/NOTICE
./extensions/adapter/NOTICE
./extensions/apt/parser/NOTICE
./extensions/apt/servlet/NOTICE
./extensions/bundleresource/NOTICE
./extensions/dojo/NOTICE
./extensions/dojo-sling/NOTICE
./extensions/event/NOTICE
./extensions/httpauth/NOTICE
./extensions/i18n/NOTICE
./jcr/api/NOTICE
./jcr/base/NOTICE
./jcr/classloader/NOTICE
./jcr/contentloader/NOTICE
./jcr/jackrabbit-api/NOTICE
./jcr/jackrabbit-client/NOTICE
./jcr/jackrabbit-server/NOTICE
./jcr/ocm/NOTICE
./jcr/resource/NOTICE
./jcr/webdav/NOTICE
./launchpad/app/NOTICE
./launchpad/base/NOTICE
./launchpad/content/NOTICE
./launchpad/jcrapp/NOTICE
./launchpad/webapp/NOTICE
./maven/maven-jcrocm-plugin/NOTICE
./maven/maven-jspc-plugin/NOTICE
./maven/maven-sling-plugin/NOTICE
./NOTICE
./osgi/obr/NOTICE
./parent/NOTICE
./samples/path-based-rtp/NOTICE
./samples/simple-demo/NOTICE
./samples/webloader/service/NOTICE
./samples/webloader/ui/NOTICE
./scripting/api/NOTICE
./scripting/core/NOTICE
./scripting/freemarker/NOTICE
./scripting/javascript/NOTICE
./scripting/jsp/NOTICE
./scripting/jsp-taglib/NOTICE
./scripting/jst/NOTICE
./scripting/ruby/NOTICE
./scripting/velocity/NOTICE
./servlets/get/NOTICE
./servlets/post/NOTICE
./servlets/resolver/NOTICE
That's simply ridiculous. And it's nothing compared to the tree
view. 836 directories, 983 files. Java sucks! And no docs.
Each one of those bundle directories deserves a README.txt that
explains why on earth we are crazy enough to need it.
Let's back up a bit. Write the docs first that explain what
Sling is and what each of these major directories are for, and
then we can edit the NOTICE files from the bottom-up. The
DISCLAIMER files are not necessary -- they should be a paragraph
in the README.txt file that is part of each package.
....Roy
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> It would be great if some people could check everything, so that we're safe
> for our upcomming release.
There's FeedParser license information at the end of trunk/LICENSE. If
we use LICENSE.* files for non-ALv2 licenses, then we should put that
into LICENSE.feedparser.
Also, note that for example Derby and Xerces come with extra NOTICE
entries that we should include at least in the binary packages.
Derby:
Portions of Derby were originally developed by International Business
Machines Corporation and are licensed to the Apache Software Foundation
under the "Software Grant and Corporate Contribution License Agreement",
informally known as the "Derby CLA". The following copyright notice(s) were
affixed to portions of the code with which this file is now or was at one
time distributed and are placed here unaltered.
(C) Copyright 1997,2004 International Business Machines Corporation.
All rights reserved.
(C) Copyright IBM Corp. 2003.
Xerces:
Portions of this software were originally based on the following:
- software copyright (c) 1999, IBM Corporation., http://www.ibm.com.
- software copyright (c) 1999, Sun Microsystems., http://www.sun.com.
- voluntary contributions made by Paul Eng on behalf of the
Apache Software Foundation that were originally developed at
iClick, Inc.,
software copyright (c) 1999.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Please, folks, I am not even a Sling committer. I am speaking as the
> author of the Apache License. Don't screw with what I have changed.
> I have way more experience in these matters than everyone else at the
> ASF combined. If you put stuff in NOTICE that is not legally required
> to be there, I will remove it as an officer of the ASF. If you add it
> back in, I will have to duplicate the effort of removing it again.
> That will not make me a happy camper.
:) Yepp, I totally understand that - and to be honest I'm not happy
about the whole situation either. I spent too much time on getting the
stuff right, and then things were changed, removed, added and this
resulted in a -1 vote and total confusion about what to place where and
what not. Looking at all the discussions at the ASF about NOTICE files
(and there are many), it clearly shows that this is not an easy topic
and that there are soo many different opinions.
I know that you're an expert on this matter - there is no doubt about it
and I believe you. I know that I ask very much from you now, but would
it be possible that you review the notice and license files for a last
time? And I promise I won't change them afterwards again :) And then
we're are sure that we've done the right thing and can finally happily
release.
And I hope that everyone else here (and in the incubator pmc) accepts
this as well!
Regards
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: License and notice files
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jun 11, 2008, at 1:48 AM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 11.06.2008, 10:10 +0200 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler:
>> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>> Note also that the current notice files include several things that,
>>> according to Roy in his revision 662927 changes, do not require
>>> notices. Better having too much than too little I guess, but there's
>>> probably some extra noise in there.
>> Yes, I know - for now I really would like to have more in there
>> than is
>> legally required. We removed a lot of stuff just to find out later on
>> that something is missing (which partially has been there the
>> first time)
>
> My stance is to give credit where credit is due and that we should not
> differentiate between those _requiring_ credit (placing these in
> NOTICE)
> and those _not_ requiring (placing these in README). Therefore, I
> am all
> for placing all included third-party (be it ASF or non-ASF) code in
> the
> respective NOTICE file.
>
> To help showing the NOTICE files I am also going to add a page in the
> Web Console which allows easy display of the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
Hey, I'm all for people having opinions on development and credits and
documentation. NOTICE and LICENSE are none of those. They are not open
to anyone's opinions other than the copyright owners that require such
notices, and they must not be added where they are not required. Each
additional notice places a burden on the ASF and all downstream
redistributors.
Please, folks, I am not even a Sling committer. I am speaking as the
author of the Apache License. Don't screw with what I have changed.
I have way more experience in these matters than everyone else at the
ASF combined. If you put stuff in NOTICE that is not legally required
to be there, I will remove it as an officer of the ASF. If you add it
back in, I will have to duplicate the effort of removing it again.
That will not make me a happy camper.
....Roy
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 11.06.2008, 10:10 +0200 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > Note also that the current notice files include several things that,
> > according to Roy in his revision 662927 changes, do not require
> > notices. Better having too much than too little I guess, but there's
> > probably some extra noise in there.
> Yes, I know - for now I really would like to have more in there than is
> legally required. We removed a lot of stuff just to find out later on
> that something is missing (which partially has been there the first time)
My stance is to give credit where credit is due and that we should not
differentiate between those _requiring_ credit (placing these in NOTICE)
and those _not_ requiring (placing these in README). Therefore, I am all
for placing all included third-party (be it ASF or non-ASF) code in the
respective NOTICE file.
To help showing the NOTICE files I am also going to add a page in the
Web Console which allows easy display of the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
Regards
Felix
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> Note also that the current notice files include several things that,
>> according to Roy in his revision 662927 changes, do not require
>> notices....
> ...Yes, I know - for now I really would like to have more in there than is
> legally required....
Ok, I'm fine with that for now, thanks.
-Bertrand
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Thanks for this - I'm wondering why the following are present in the
> launchpad/app notice, but not in launchpad/webapp?
>
Thanks for spotting this - it's a mistake :) I've fixed it.
> See SLING-494 for discussion and TIKA-91 for the required notice.
Ah thanks, I've added the info.
>
> Note also that the current notice files include several things that,
> according to Roy in his revision 662927 changes, do not require
> notices. Better having too much than too little I guess, but there's
> probably some extra noise in there.
Yes, I know - for now I really would like to have more in there than is
legally required. We removed a lot of stuff just to find out later on
that something is missing (which partially has been there the first time)
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Carsten,
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...I reverted our notice files to hand edited versions and updated them. I
> added some missing information and license files....
Thanks for this - I'm wondering why the following are present in the
launchpad/app notice, but not in launchpad/webapp?
> This product also includes XPath grammar and parser from the W3C
> Copyright (c) 2002 World Wide Web Consortium,
> (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institut National de
> Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, Keio University).
> This product includes software developed at pdfbox.org,
> licensed under the BSD License.
As webapp includes an embedded Jackrabbit repository I guess it should
also include that.
> ...The only thing I could find is the information about the text extractors
> This has to be added to the jackrabbit server module, the launchpad app and
> the root of the source tree....
See SLING-494 for discussion and TIKA-91 for the required notice.
Note also that the current notice files include several things that,
according to Roy in his revision 662927 changes, do not require
notices. Better having too much than too little I guess, but there's
probably some extra noise in there.
-Bertrand
Re: License and notice files
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi Carsten,
Thank you very much. I will try to look into these files today or
tomorrow.
Regards
Felix
Am Mittwoch, den 11.06.2008, 09:40 +0200 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler:
> Hi,
>
> I reverted our notice files to hand edited versions and updated them. I
> added some missing information and license files.
>
> The launchpad app and webapp have the aggregated information of the
> included bundles/jar and the root of our source tree has the aggregated
> information of all bundles we want to release.
>
> The only thing I could find is the information about the text
> extractors. This has to be added to the jackrabbit server module, the
> launchpad app and the root of the source tree.
>
> It would be great if some people could check everything, so that we're
> safe for our upcomming release. Please keep in mind that if you change
> something in a bundle that you reflect the changes in launchpad
> app/webapp and the root of the source tree. But I think with peer review
> of the changes this shouldn't really be a problem.
>
> Carsten