Re: Licenses of Libraries [was Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/src/blocks/html/libjtidy-04aug2000r7-dev.jar.license]

[Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>]

Geoff Howard dijo:
> What about just adding an element for licence location to jars.xml?  e.g.,
>
> <<file>
>         <title>Avalon Excalibur DataSource</title>
>         <description>Part of avalon, it is a set of classes and patterns
> that support high level server development.</description>
>         <used-by>Cocoon</used-by>
>         <lib>databases/lib/excalibur-datasource-1.1.1.jar</lib>
>     <homepage>http://avalon.apache.org/excalibur/</homepage>
>     <license>legal/LICENSE.avalon</license>
> </file>

This is a good idea Geoff. I also will add a change in the licences
extension. Currently we have problems because the usage of non-standard
extension. If we use eclipse, then we post this files as binary. This is
not good. The workaround is to reconfigure eclipse to recognize the
extensions:

.avalon, etc

as text files. The process is boring and not reliable (how we can be sure
every committer will set eclipse in this way?).

I short I will be glad if we define an standard extension to this files
too. For example: .txt

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo.

Re: Licenses of Libraries

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Geoff Howard dijo:
> > What about just adding an element for licence location to jars.xml?  e.g.,
> >
> > <<file>
> >         <title>Avalon Excalibur DataSource</title>
> >         <description>Part of avalon, it is a set of classes and patterns
> > that support high level server development.</description>
> >         <used-by>Cocoon</used-by>
> >         <lib>databases/lib/excalibur-datasource-1.1.1.jar</lib>
> >     <homepage>http://avalon.apache.org/excalibur/</homepage>
> >     <license>legal/LICENSE.avalon</license>
> > </file>
> 
> This is a good idea Geoff.

Yes, great. It builds on the current tools. Could the "validate-jars"
build target then verify this?

> I also will add a change in the licences
> extension. Currently we have problems because the usage of non-standard
> extension. If we use eclipse, then we post this files as binary. This is
> not good. The workaround is to reconfigure eclipse to recognize the
> extensions:
> 
> .avalon, etc
> 
> as text files. The process is boring and not reliable (how we can be sure
> every committer will set eclipse in this way?).
> 
> I short I will be glad if we define an standard extension to this files
> too. For example: .txt

Yes. Please, please, let us use sensible filename extensions
or go back to using the good old cvs command-line client.

The recent commit of the *.license files made a mess of CVS.
They are all known as binary files to CVS and they all have
the DOS line-endings pollution.

--David