incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 2nd attempt
Date Tue, 15 May 2012 08:34:25 GMT
>>>>> Can you please let me know which license XPP uses? I could not find
>>>>> informatino in NOTICE and did not find a website which helped me. its
>>>>> necessary to clarify that as xpp3 is in the war file release. Once you
>>>>> me, I will give my +1
>>>> Clearly missing in the N&L files.
>>> OK. Guess this should be fixed with a new attempt then.
>> Will do ASAP - guess we are trying to beat some record at Syncope: I know
>> that Flex made it in seven attempts, we are approaching... ;-)
>> Jokes apart, we are talking here about XPP3, a transitive dependency of
>> XStream which is instead a declared dependency of Syncope (core).
>> We honestly did not consider at all such dependencies in L&N files, and
>> there are quite some: what's the best practice for such cases? I see no
>> option but using the maven dependency plugin in order to find all transitive
>> dependencies and update L&N files consequently.
>> Is this correct? Basically, I feel this like breaking the Maven dependency
>> resolution...
> I must admit I'm a bit puzzled.
> IMO, the L&N files should only contain the required licenses and notice for
> deps we are explicitely declaring in the poms, as they are part of the
> build. The fact that the built wars include transitive dependencies is a
> by-product of the build. In other words, if a 3rd party we include itself
> depends on some other libs, then it's this 3rd party L&N files to
> explicitely include the required L&N, not ours.

When you put a war file on /dist containing that jar file, you are
releasing it. Imho it does not matter if it is transitive or what else
- at least it must be AL compatible. Others may correct me, but i
think this must be cared of.

> So XPP is not included by us, and should not be added in the N&L, as I
> initially (wrongly) thought.
"All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package
should be included in the LICENSE document. "

It says to me, it does not matter who depends on what, it does only
matter whats inside your war.

Btw, I am still unsure which license XPP has. This is worse, because:
"Again, these artifacts may be distributed only if they contain

This means for me, the XPP.jar can only be included in the war file
when it contains a LICENSE or a NOTICE. I just opened it, but there is
no such files. In fact it means I cannot see from the release what
license it actually contains.

Is there a chance you remove XPP or add license information for this artifact?


> Regarding the distinction between sources vs binary N&L files, my perception
> is that we should keep all the required (ie if it's explicitely asked by the
> 3rd party license) 3rd party Licenses, and nothing more. I do think we are
> pretty much ok here. Sebastian, if you have some libs that you think should
> not be present in the N&L files, could you name them ?

> Thanks !
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel L├ęcharny
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message