On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:08 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > AIUI this is not policy > > > > My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved
if you want a ruling on apache legal policy then you need to ask on legal-discuss > and formally documented. if it isn't documented as policy, it's not policy ;-) - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
