Details
-
Question
-
Status: Closed
-
Major
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
None
-
None
Description
Most m2 based projects creates multiple jars for each module they release and the resulting jars are published to maven repositories.
Some of them are:
jar: the "standard output", contaiinng binary for the project
source-jar: sources for the classes included in the above jar (for reference, not for build purpose).
javadoc-jar: javadocs about the classes included in the jar
test-jar: tests binary for the jar library
Most m2 projects use org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 resource bundle and creates a very simple LICENSE/NOTICE that is appropriate for the "jar" package, but this file also ends up in the other packages I described.
My concern is: what should we care for?
javadoc-jar: what are the rules for a LICENSE/NOTICE about javadocs? are they equal to the binary classes they document?
source-jar: is there any special rule or the LICENSE/NOTICE that works for the binary is also ok for their java sources?
test-jar: this one seems to deserve a custom LICENSE/NOTICE because it include really something different from the jar: e.g: most project would probably need at least this in the NOTICE:
----------
This product includes/uses software, JUnit (http://www.junit.org/),
developed by Kent Beck, Erich Gamma, and David Saff
License: Common Public License Version 1.0 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php)
---------
Is this paranoia or something we should be care of?
Maybe you already discussed this issue and a policy is already in place, but I didn't find anything in www.apache.org and also with few searches in legal-discuss archives.