On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Kevan Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Was waiting for build to finish. Given the US holidays, etc. I'd give this a few more days to gather additional votes…
On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Forrest Xia wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Kevan Miller <email@example.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?
OK, that's fine to wait a couple days for this vote.