This repository has been archived by the owner on May 4, 2022. It is now read-only.
add Apache2 NOTICE #691
Merged
add Apache2 NOTICE #691
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Stop declaring dependency on JSTL, which is not used.
Partially fulfills guidance at http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps .
ChristianMurphy
approved these changes
Sep 14, 2017
ChristianMurphy
approved these changes
Sep 14, 2017
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
NOTICEfileLICENSEJSTLdependency so we don't have to untangle under what license we'd be redistributing it.Attempts to apply Apache guidance about composing NOTICE file and acknowledging dependencies in LICENSE file.
As it turns out, the
NOTICEfile can be simple boilerplate, because the included dependencies don't rise to ack-in-NOTICE technicality.However, we do have an ECL 1.0 dependency: the Java logging implementation. Apache's got a manageable amount of angst about this and emphasizes that we really need to emphasize to adopters that we've got this. So acknowledged in README.
Makes the pragmatic tradeoff of documenting war-file-distribution-only dependencies in the LICENSE file in the source and so in the source distribution. I don't think this is what Apache Software Foundation would have us do. However. Having the acknowledgements in source control is convenient. What's the alternative? Some shadow copy of LICENSE somewhere else? Incorporated into binary releases in some fancier release process we don't yet have? That seems like a not-currently-feasible amount of complexity, whereas this approach seems presently achievable as demonstrated by achieving it.
Someday this project will adjust to no longer build with Maven, no longer produce a
.war, and so no longer have any Java dependencies, and so have fewer dependencies to acknowledge with less complexity. In the meantime, this should bring the project into licensing practice compliance.The JavaScript dependencies don't seem to need acknowledgement because we don't redistribute them. Even the NPM distribution, it includes metadata referencing dependencies, but not the dependencies themselves. How civilized.
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.