Re: Multi-licensed dependencies

2012-03-31 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:08 PM, sebb wrote: > On 30 March 2012 17:38, Leo Simons wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM, sebb wrote: > >> On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >>> On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > Personally, I agree with Roy. Perhaps

Re: Multi-licensed dependencies

2012-03-30 Thread sebb
On 30 March 2012 17:38, Leo Simons wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM, sebb wrote: >> On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding 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

Re: Multi-licensed dependencies

2012-03-30 Thread Leo Simons
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM, sebb wrote: > On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding 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 (alongsi

Re: Multi-licensed dependencies

2012-03-29 Thread Roy T. Fielding
On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, sebb wrote: >> On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >>> 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

Re: Multi-licensed dependencies

2012-03-29 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, sebb wrote: > On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> 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

Re: Multi-licensed dependencies

2012-03-29 Thread sebb
On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding 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

Re: Multi-licensed dependencies

2012-03-29 Thread Roy T. Fielding
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