geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Forrest Xia <forres...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo 3.0.0 (3rd Try)
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2012 01:27:38 GMT
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:23 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> > I'm a little confused by the LICENSE and NOTICE in the source.  I've
> been telling people for years that these should apply to what is actually
> in the source, however these appear to be the ones appropriate for the
> binary distros.  For instance they point to files in the repository folder
> which only exists in the binary distro.
>
> That can be debated. And I've seen both styles used. I'm not sure which
> style I prefer. Separate source and binary license files may be more
> accurate, but they also may be misinterpreted. I do agree that
> license/notice in jar files should be source licenses…
>
> In any event, the current source LICENSE file clearly indicates what
> applies to source and binaries. A consumer of the source should be able to
> easily sort out what applies/doesn't apply… So, I'm fine with it as is…
>
Kevan, your vote?

>
> --kevan




-- 
Thanks!

Regards, Forrest

Mime
View raw message