Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On 3/28/08, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"The PRIOR rules said you place/retain copyright notices on each file.
The NEW policy says you can skip that, move them into a NOTICE. The policy
*never* granted you the right to remove them altogether, or make the
providence of the code impossible to track down by placing it [the NOTICE
and LICENSE] in a meaningless location."
and wasn't disputed. Anyone care to try?
"meaningless location" is disputable. Take Wicket for example: we have
different sub projects that are released in one distribution artifact,
and as jars for each sub project into the maven repository. Each sub
project depends on different code under different licenses, with
different notice requirements.
So we keep the particular notice and license file for each sub project
in its root folder, and concatenate them all during the release build
into a big license and notice file.
Martijn, that's completely in line with my statement. Each element is
properly attributed, and then in your release process you assemble them
all into a proper and complete attribution.
Keeping them separate in our svn repo is better as each sub project's
maintainer knows when/how/why to update and modify the notice/license
files. When the release is cut, these changes are automatically
incorporated into the big distribution. This also prevents
wicket-spring-1.3.3.jar from having notice attributions from
wicket-guice-1.3.3.jar, which would be rather silly and certainly
confusing.
That was exactly my point about altogether *missing* notice and license
files that don't occur in a particular svn repository, at least at trunk/
applicable to everything within that tree, and more frequently if it's
simpler to maintain.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
