Can someone clarify the below for us on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sebb 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 and
formally documented.
--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
