On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> With that said, I think it's something good and extremely useful to strive >> for. The lack of it, i.e. extensive documentation in LICENSE/NOTICE with >> regards to transitive dependencies, is not a showstopper IMO unless there >> are explicit rules prohibiting it on the ASF rules. > > I don't have a chapter and verse to quote you. I'll work on getting/creating > some clarification. I may not be able to start on that for the next few > days... I feel like I'm missing something. There shouldn't be any difference between a first-order dependency and a transitive dependency. All that matters is whether or not the dependency is bundled, right?[1] Why would we need ASF rules regarding *transitive* dependency license documentation in particular? So long as we bundle the bits, we have to bundle the licensing -- possibly bubbling up any relevant ALv2 NOTICE provisions into the top-level NOTICE since that's what the ALv2 requires. On the other hand, if the bits aren't bundled, then the licensing shouldn't be bundled either. If the bundled dependencies of the canonical ASF source release and a convenience binary differ, then their licensing must be analyzed separately and may differ. If a project has a gazillion dependencies, regardless of whether those dependencies are direct or transitive, that makes dealing with licensing more challenging, but it doesn't change our legal obligations. Marvin Humphrey [1] Leaving aside concerns about copyleft, field of use restrictions, etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
