2008/8/29 Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Friday 29 August 2008 12:16:34 pm Martin Ritchie wrote: >> 2008/8/29 Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > The LICENSE/NOTICE files seem to use the older "auto generated from the >> > older maven plugins" style which Legal decided was not correct. They >> > should be updated. >> > >> > Dan >> >> Hey Dan, >> >> Care to point us in the right direction here. I couldn't see any >> NOTICE/LICENSE in the cxf repository. > > They are auto-generated. > > In anycase, the basic requirement is that: > 1) The NOTICE file ONLY contains notices that are required by any artifacts in > the distribution. (qpid might not have any, although double check any > dependency jars to see if they have a NOTICE with content that would need to > be copied in) > > 2) The LICENSE file contains the Apache license text as well as either the > license text for any other licenses for stuff in that distribution or > pointers to the LICENSE text for those artifacts. (and denote which > artifacts apply to which license) > > For example, the license text at the top of the amqp spec xml files would need > to be copied to the bottom of the LICENSE file. > > Dan
Thanks Dan, my brain is spinning from all the apache-legal emails I've been going through since I saw your mail. I think our NOTICE files are more of the reference style that should be in the LICENSE section. Interesting that we can now just reference the License text as it was my understanding when we released M2/M2.1 that the full license text must be present in the LICENSE file. The AMQP license is missing from those as there had been previous discussions on apache-legal about including nor not including it that I wasn't party too. Will update the files and aim to put out an RC4 for review later today. Thanks all for the feedback. Martin > >> >> Cheers >> >> Martin >> >> > On Friday 29 August 2008 4:13:46 am ant elder wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Aidan Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Craig L Russell >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for checking these. >> >> > >> >> > > There should be a KEYS file high up in your directory structure. I >> >> > > didn't look too hard for it elsewhere, but just downloaded your key >> >> > > from the >> >> > >> >> > public >> >> > >> >> > > keyserv. I later found a KEYS in the java directory, but it's >> >> > > clearly misplaced here and doesn't appear to contain your key. >> >> > > >> >> > > There is still no LICENSE file high in your distribution. If you go >> >> > > to >> >> > >> >> > many >> >> > >> >> > > of the project directories at the top level you don't find the >> >> > > LICENSE either. >> >> > >> >> > Urrr. Looks like a commit failed and I didn't check when I tagged it >> >> > again, gah. I've added KEYS, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER, LICENSE to the top >> >> > level but.. >> >> > >> >> > > But qpid-incubating-M3/java has no LICENSE or NOTICE. Not ok. If >> >> > > your >> >> > >> >> > intent >> >> > >> >> > > is that the files in java/resources are supposed to cover the entire >> >> > > java directory, they need to be popped up a level when you package >> >> > > the >> >> > >> >> > release, >> >> > >> >> > > because there's no indication that this is the intent. We don't want >> >> > >> >> > people >> >> > >> >> > > to guess where LICENSE and NOTICE files apply. >> >> > >> >> > The top level notice will point to these. >> >> > >> >> > > The qpid-incubating-M3/gentools has no LICENSE or NOTICE. >> >> > > >> >> > > The qpid-incubating-M3/specs have licenses and notices in the files >> >> > > but again, you need LICENSE and NOTICE files popped up at least one >> >> > > level. >> >> > > >> >> > > The qpid-incubating-M3/cc has no LICENSE or NOTICE. >> >> > > >> >> > > The qpid-incubating-M3/bin has no LICENSE or NOTICE. >> >> > > >> >> > > The qpid-incubating-M3/review has no LICENSE or NOTICE. >> >> > > >> >> > > The qpid-incubating-M3/buildtools has no LICENSE or NOTICE. >> >> > >> >> > Can somebody else from qpid take care of these for me please? I'm >> >> > going to be without internet access until Tuesday. I've attached the >> >> > shell script I use to do all this, it should Just Work. (it does the >> >> > tagging for you, so make sure you have $EDITOR or $VISUAL set so you >> >> > can enter the commit message for the svn commands) >> >> > >> >> > - Aidan >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing >> >> > http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid >> >> > "Nine-tenths of wisdom consists in being wise in time." - Theodore >> >> > Roosevelt >> >> > >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> While those are being fixed there's one more thing as well, >> >> qpid-incubating-M3-java.tar.gz is missing the license text for the >> >> third party licenses it uses, eg BSD, MIT, MPL, EPL. The text of those >> >> licenses needs to be included somewhere probably in the top level >> >> LICENSE file. >> >> >> >> ...ant >> > >> > -- >> > Daniel Kulp >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Martin Ritchie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
