Hi,
Thanks everyone for the input, especially Stian for taking a thorough look!
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
wrote:
> it's quite a long list.. obviously you should fix your own metadata so
> predictionio does not become one of the "unknown licenses". :)
>
Sure will do.
You are right that if you are not redistributing third-party
dependencies yourself (e.g. part of source code or embedded within
ZIP/JAR files) - then you should not be propagating their
NOTICE/LICENSE details.
However you still need to check that the dependencies your code relies
on is acceptable
As I understand things, the licensing information you provide in your
artifacts should reflect everything contained within that artifact. You do
not need to provide license/notice information for dependencies which are
not bundled in your artifact.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:01 PM Donald Szeto wro
On 9/20/16, 11:50 AM, "Donald Szeto" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I am preparing my first Apache release and am wondering if I need to check
>licenses of all transitive deps if the release contains:
>
>- a single source tarball;
>- a few binary JAR artifacts on Nexus that contain no transitive deps in
>e
Sorry. I should have mentioned that I am preparing a release for
PredictionIO.
Regards,
Donald
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016, Donald Szeto wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am preparing my first Apache release and am wondering if I need to check
> licenses of all transitive deps if the release contains:
Hi all,
I am preparing my first Apache release and am wondering if I need to check
licenses of all transitive deps if the release contains:
- a single source tarball;
- a few binary JAR artifacts on Nexus that contain no transitive deps in
either binary or source form.
Would it be sufficient to
