Notice and License Files (was: Re: [ApacheDS] Planning for a 1.5.3 release)

[Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 2:54 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
> On Mar 10, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I think it's time for pumping out a 1.5.3 release before AC/EU.  I
> > would like to get a release ready to be voted on by at least the
> > 24th.  We can prep something and have people kicking the tires by
> > the 17th.
> >
> > Also I want to get all the legal issues sorted out since that new
> > plugin was used to take out our NOTICE files.
>
> There have been further developments on the legal-files front -)
>

Good thanks for looking out on this front.


>
> Current thinking IIUC is that:
> -- there needs to by LICENSE and NOTICE files in svn at the root of
> stuff you are expected to check out (trunk, branches/foo, tags/bar).
> These apply to the entire checked out project.
> -- all other LICENSE and NOTICE files can be generated.
> -- the NOTICE file is a notice, not a list of dependencies.  Unless
> we've copied code from elsewhere that needs attribution or extra
> licenses the standard apache notice is fine.
> -- a list of dependencies, while possibly useful, should not go in
> the NOTICE file.
>
> I've developed a resource bundle for geronimo that I think satisfies
> these crieteria, and posted a note to legal-discuss about it.  I
> suggest we use it here.
>

Sounds good we could use that instead of the standard plugin.


>
> How about it we wait for objections on legal-discuss and for the
> geronimo release vote for this to pass, then switch over to this bundle?
>

Sure that's fine.  Let's get that in if we can if not we can just get this
release out and move on later to use that plugin.


>
> My longer term goal is to get this to be the standard apache resource
> bundle, but this may not happen immediately.
>

Right that would be ideal.

Alex