On 2 April 2014 12:03, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > >> What do you mean by correct? > The have the correct copyright and licence header. ie the Adobe files have a > BSD license and are copyright Adobe. > >> The LICENSE file must include the text - or provide a pointer to a >> local copy of the text > > So then the recent conversation and response by Marvin Humphrey on this list > is incorrect or have I just misunderstood it? [1] > > "For source redistributions, the MIT, 2-clause BSD, and 3-clause BSD licenses > are all satisfied by retaining the license text and copyright notice embedded > in each dependency source file."
I think that was intended to refer to the NOTICE file only. > My understanding is to comply with the BSD license in a source release all > that is required is that the header file be keep in place (the first clause), > for a binary release you licences need to documented somehow (the second > clause). The point of having a single NOTICE and LICENSE file at the top level of the distribution (or META-INF in jars) is that there is a really obvious place for the consumer to be able to check the licensing condtions. They should not have to go hunting around the directory tree looking for files which might have any name and be located anywhere. That's why the LICENSE file should either contain the license text or a pointer to a local copy of the license text. > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201403.mbox/%3cCAAS6=7g=pbo+igtarw1hka1au69h7zyb4azkt+z2n-fom0o...@mail.gmail.com%3e > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
