Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-felix-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 96519 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2008 17:23:11 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Feb 2008 17:23:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 2461 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2008 17:23:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-felix-dev-archive@felix.apache.org Received: (qmail 2430 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2008 17:23:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@felix.apache.org Received: (qmail 2421 invoked by uid 99); 4 Feb 2008 17:23:02 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:23:02 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of heavy@ungoverned.org designates 69.89.20.231 as permitted sender) Received: from [69.89.20.231] (HELO outbound-mail-16.bluehost.com) (69.89.20.231) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:22:31 +0000 Received: (qmail 15066 invoked by uid 0); 4 Feb 2008 17:22:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO host118.hostmonster.com) (74.220.207.118) by mailproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2008 17:22:38 -0000 Received: from nat-04.eecs.tufts.edu ([130.64.23.204] helo=heavy.glastender.com) by host118.hostmonster.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JM51h-0002zw-Tn for dev@felix.apache.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:22:38 -0700 Message-ID: <47A749DB.5060102@ungoverned.org> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:22:35 -0500 From: "Richard S. Hall" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@felix.apache.org Subject: Re: Improved notice file References: <47A7126F.3030005@apache.org> <47A73EE8.2040609@ungoverned.org> <81f0d9c0802040842m4295bb00k21e3fd598cf0d1ee@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <81f0d9c0802040842m4295bb00k21e3fd598cf0d1ee@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1027:host118.hostmonster.com:ungovern:ungoverned.org} {sentby:smtp auth 130.64.23.204 authed with heavy@ungoverned.org} X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Stuart McCulloch wrote: > On 05/02/2008, Richard S. Hall wrote: > >> Looks good to me. >> >> Up until now we have been including in the notice file our top-level >> dependencies. Is there some distinction we want to draw between "used" >> software that is actually embedded in the release versus "used" software >> that we depend on? >> > > > I thought that was covered by the 'Included Software' vs. 'Used Software' > sections. > (ie. embedded software from outside the project comes under 'Included > Software' ?) > Ok, if that is the distinction...I guess I wasn't thinking of it that way...so, then it looks good to me. -> richard > -> richard > >> Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> what do you think if we start setting up our notice file like this: >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/scrplugin/NOTICE >>> >>> (I just committed it to have a better base for discussion as quoting >>> the whole thing in an email is not very comfortable for discussing.) >>> >>> I splitted the notice file into three sections, one listening the >>> included software (and licenses), one section for the used software >>> (and licenses) and the third one for a summary of all licenses. >>> >>> >>> WDYT? >>> Carsten >>> > > > >