Kevan Miller wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
Dan Diephouse wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 3rd
party
>>>
>> > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party
licences.
>> > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain
copies of
>> > the AL for every ASF product.
>> >
>>
>> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other
licenses?
>> These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF
projects.
>>
>>
>
> See the last paragraph of:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>
>
"or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the third-party
license" - which we in the NOTICE file.
But they need to go in the LICENSE file, see:
http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
Did you not read the next paragraph?
There is not a legal requirement here that it must be in the LICENSE
file itself - if so, please point me to the place in the license.
This
is page is to provide "guidance" (see the first sentence), not be the
ultimate authority on what exactly is legally permissible for
distributions.
If you look at many other ASF projects in the incubator and outside,
you'll see that this is not an enforced policy - this is simply
telling
developers one way to get started here.
Can other people please chime in here?
I have never ever seen this enforced and I do not believe its a
requirement. Just to summarize - do we need to 1) include all the
licenses for all our dependencies in a single libary or can we 2)
have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and then have individual
LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
I think not allowing the second would be a HUGE mistake. It makes it
much clearer which license applies to which file.
Dan
I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in
a single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is
ASL and then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the
lib/ directory.
I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In
fact, the document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to
the LICENSE file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license
files. So, IMO, 2) is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
I do think LICENSE information in jar files should be complete (i.e.
jar files shouldn't reference information that would only be found in
a full binary distribution). It looks like your jars are ok, in that
respect.
On the other hand, I believe there must be only one NOTICE file. I see
multiple NOTICE files in your jars. I haven't downloaded the full
distribution given the number of changes which seem to be occurring...
Hard to keep track.
Each jar has a NOTICE file in META-INF/NOTICE. The source and binary
distributions each have a NOTICE file in /.
Where are the multiple NOTICE files?
Dan
--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
