> web/lib/servlet-api.jar : It looks like you mention this under your > notice file but I don' t see details about it's license.
I wasn't sure how to handle our external binary dependencies, so I asked on our podling's dev@ list (http://tinyurl.com/djr37w). In the case of this file, the answer seemed to be that there was no issue with including it. I interpreted that as not needing anything in the NOTICE or LICENSE file, but if that's not true, then I'll make changes as necessary. > wtk/lib/plugin.jar : I don' t see this mentioned in notice or license This file is included in the JRE, which we list as a system requirement. We only include it in the source distribution because it's not in the classpath by default when you compile, so we had to put it in a known place. > wtk/stax-api1.0-jar : There was some discussion about the license of > this jar in legal-discuss recently (see. LEGAL-42 [1]), and looks like > people have been recommending using the jar from Geronimo which is > under Apache license (geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec-1.0.1.jar) I hadn't seen that ticket, but the version we used is from http://stax.codehaus.org/, which is also licensed under Apache 2.0, so it should be good to go. > In general, the notice file in the distribution mention couple of > other licenses (e.g CPL 1.0, Java EE Servlet specification, BSD, etc) > which are not appended on the LICENSE file.See [2] for more detail. I had read the best practices when building my NOTICE and LICENSE file, and it states "The artifacts and documents to which each subsidiary clause applies should be indicated in the document.", so what I did at the time was to read each license to see which ones required me to provide a copy of their license (BSD did). CCA and CPL didn't specify that I needed to include a copy of their license in my distribution. CCA was possibly ambiguous in this case, but that license only applies to the silk icons, which clarify any such ambiguity on their home page: http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/ -- "All I ask is that you include a link back to this page in your credits" All that being said, I'm happy to include the CCA and CPL licenses in our LICENSE file if that's a deal breaker for 1.1. And in any case, I'll add those licenses to that file for future releases just to make sure we cover all bases in the future. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
