On 17/12/2007, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevan Miller wrote: > > > > On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote: > > > >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>> Marshall Schor wrote: > >>>> We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top directory > >>>> of the source (and binary) distribution(s), but didn't realize this > >>>> also > >>>> needs to be in the top level of the SVN tag, because we didn't know > >>>> that > >>>> was considered part of the "distribution". > >>>> > >>>> Can you please confirm this is the case? In which case, we'll of > >>>> course > >>>> comply. > >>> > >>> Your distribution must correspond to subversion, otherwise it's very > >>> hard > >>> to track the artifacts in the tarball, where they came from, how they > >>> got there, and if they underwent the proper oversight prior to > >>> packaging. > >>> (Yes, we vote on the prepared tarball, but you can see how discrepancies > >>> do create questions.) > >> > >> That's not how I interpret the policy document. It says: > >> > >> "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 > >> > >> 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." > >> > >> That's what we do. Of course we'll make every effort to make > >> our distribution easy to review. However, it does seem that > >> we're ok wrt current policy, and view this as a suggestion > >> for next time. Ok? > > > > Your interpretation works if your subversion repository is not a > > "distribution". IMO, it is and should contain appropriate > > license/notice/disclaimer. > > If that is the consensus opinion here, that's what we'll > do. But please put yourself in our shoes. We can only go > by the information that is available to us. If this is a > rule, it would be great if it could be written down so the > next incubator project doesn't have to go through this. I'd > be happy to help with the docs. > > Out of curiosity, I started going through the Apache SVN repo > to see what Apache projects complied with this requirement. I > stopped after C because I'd already found 4 that didn't > comply: Avalon, Cayenne, Cocoon and Commons.
Avalon is defunct, so does not count. Commons looks OK to me; there are N&L files in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/attributes/trunk/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/commons-build/trunk/ and http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/vfs/trunk/ to take a few at random The top-level directory: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/ is not a project - see the README for details. I agree that Cayenne and Cocoon are "non-compliant". > Compliant > were Activemq, Ant, APR and Beehive. > > --Thilo > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
