On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses. > 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. > > --kevan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
