Todd Volkert wrote: > > web/lib/servlet-api.jar
> 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. For every artifact, we should include appropriate documentation that redistribution is permitted. > > wtk/lib/plugin.jar > 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. Unless you can document the redistribution right, we cannot include it, and you should therefore put it in a README or make your build script check for it. > > wtk/stax-api1.0-jar : > 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. Fine, then please so indicate. >> 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'm happy to include the CCA and CPL licenses in our LICENSE file [to] > make sure we cover all bases Yes. Please re-roll your packages with the updated information. Sorry, but this should be a one time PITA issue for you. We do need to document redistribution rights, and particularly in the Incubator, we are not lax on the subject. You are not being singled out. Many projects go through this process, and with a lot more issues. Consider BlueSky, which has been working to remove its viral license dependencies. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
