On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top
directory
of the source (and binary) distribution(s), but didn't realize
this also
needs to be in the top level of the SVN tag, because we didn't
know that
was considered part of the "distribution".
Can you please confirm this is the case? In which case, we'll of
course
comply.
Your distribution must correspond to subversion, otherwise it's
very hard
to track the artifacts in the tarball, where they came from, how they
got there, and if they underwent the proper oversight prior to
packaging.
(Yes, we vote on the prepared tarball, but you can see how
discrepancies
do create questions.)
That's not how I interpret the policy document. It says:
"To apply the ALv2 to a new software distribution, include one copy
of the license text by copying
the file:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
into a file called LICENSE in the top directory of your
distribution. If the distribution is a jar
or tar file, try to add the LICENSE file first in order to place it
at the top of the archive."
That's what we do. Of course we'll make every effort to make
our distribution easy to review. However, it does seem that
we're ok wrt current policy, and view this as a suggestion
for next time. Ok?
Your interpretation works if your subversion repository is not a
"distribution". IMO, it is and should contain appropriate license/
notice/disclaimer.
--kevan
