On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: >> Personally, I agree with Roy. Perhaps it might seem a little odd to include >> the text of e.g. the GPLv2 in one of our LICENSE files (alongside a more >> permissive license), but the key here is that it is both legally OK for us to >> distribute a product bundling such a dependency without explicitly justifying >> our usage, and legally OK for a downstream consumer to distribute a product >> bundling ours which asserts usage of the dependency under a different >> rationale. > > I prefer to put our license in the file and then, at the bottom, refer > to a list of other licenses per dependency (if included in this package), > wherein the dependency licenses are in separate files near the dependency.
However, this does not agree with the following [1]: >>> ... When an artifact contains code under several licenses, the LICENSE file should contain details of all these licenses. For each component which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and the license under which the component is distributed should be appended to the LICENSE file. <<< [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses > ....Roy > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
