On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:44 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 03/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 and > > > formally documented. > > > > > > where did you find the rule you based your understanding of policy on? > > > > Please see the first message in this thread.
the only reference i could see is to http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html. this is not a normative document and is not policy. this document is old and CTR so this is easy to fix to prevent future confusion. (apologies if i've missed a policy document hopefully you'll jump in and correct me.) > We should be making it as easy as possible for users to find the > relevant licenses. > > That's presumably why the main license file is only called LICENSE or > LICENSE.txt, not license.doc or readme.license etc, and the file is > always in the top level directory (or META-INF for jars). > > Why should we force users to go looking around the directory structure > to find all the relevant additional licenses? i'm not arguing about best practice (i too personally prefer everything in one LICENSE file) but about policy. AIUI policy does not mandate that all licenses be included in one file. have i missed normative documentation to the contrary? there is a subjective element to judging releases in the incubator: everyone acknowledges that. but it's important to be clearly right when using policy to justify -1'ing a release. a subjective -1 is much easier to accept than one based on a contentious reading of non-normative documentation. IMO the right way to promote best practice is by positive argument and example. this means good documentation that positively promote good practice. the incubator release document really needs a lot more work before we can even then about trying to gain consensus on it's contents. it'd be great if you'd write up something on the merits of including all license information in one file that could be included. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
