@busbey Sounds like you know what we need to do...wanna put together a PR?

Sure, I can do that.
On Aug 1, 2015 11:02 AM, "Charles Oliver Nutter" notifications@github.com
wrote:

@busbey https://github.com/busbey Sounds like you know what we need to
do...wanna put together a PR?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#3199 (comment).

ugh. min maven version at 3.3 means I'll need an upgrade. gotta wrap up some things before I risk a maven upgrade.

sorry for the delay.

you always can use ./mvnw from the root directory then you do not need to
install any updated maven.

On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Sean Busbey notifications@github.com
wrote:

ugh. min maven version at 3.3 means I'll need an upgrade. gotta wrap up
some things before I risk a maven upgrade.

sorry for the delay.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#3199 (comment).

has this been resolved? I was about to log a similar issue - where the download here http://jruby.org/files/downloads/1.7.21/index.html only has LICENSE.txt file with Apache-2.0 in META-INF and no other license info I could find - leading one to think that is the license. However, the corresponding here https://github.com/jruby/jruby lists the disjunctive EPL/GPL/LGPL as the main license.
Can someone 1) clarify what is the project license for jruby-complete-1.7.21 (and subsequent versions); and 2) preferably update that on the jruby.org download page?

thanks!

AFAIK it's still an issue. I haven't had time to take care of it and I'm not sure when I will. I'm happy to help with reviewing if someone else has time to put together a PR.

Was about to log that too, this is still an issue in jruby-complete-9.1.13.0.jar

jruby-complete-9.1.13.0.jar:/META-INF/License.txt -> apache 2.0 license
jruby-complete-9.1.13.0.jar:/META-INF/COPYING -> triple license EPL/GPL/LGPL
jruby-complete-9.1.13.0.jar:/META-INF/BSDL -> another license file
jruby-complete-9.1.13.0.jar:/META-INF/LICENSE.RUBY -> another license file
jruby-complete-9.1.13.0.jar:/META-INF/LEGAL ->declared obsolete together with a stab at someone named Ola

LEGAL might be a good place for clarifying to users what the Jruby license is, and which other licenses apply due to its relationship to the ruby language, and dependency libraries.

License.txt should definitely contain the Jruby license.

All other license files maybe should be named after what they contain (i.e. apache_2.0_license.txt, ruby_license.txt, etc.) and LEGAL should maybe have an index of reasons why they are there and to which extent they apply.

I'm unclear of the damage an incorrect license bundled with a binary might be (as opposed to a source archive), but I agree we should tidy this up. I looks like it's just the wrong set of files getting included. If someone could lookup and clarify the proper/typical way to include license info in a binary jar, that would help move this forward.

If the license info in the source jars is misleading or nonstandard, of course we should fix that immediately.

@headius the META-INF files are merge of all the shaded libraries. so that is how this mix come in. this mix should be already there for the regular jruby.jar as we do shade libraries here as well. probably there is way to keep those out of the shaded file. try to look into this (time is limited nowadays).

@headius it looks like we can configure to shade-plugin to do something with the licenses - the question is what is wanted ? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22968266/maven-shade-plugin-and-licenses

It appears that @busbey did get us a PR which was merged into 9.1.2.0 in #3839.

I'm making a small additional change to remove this weird LICENSE.txt with CDDL content, but we'll call this one done as of 9.1.2.0.