incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: Binary dependencies
Date Wed, 08 Aug 2012 18:46:15 GMT
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:21 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:

(snip)

>> 2 - Assuming that *some* solution for dependency downloads is
>> achieved, do we assume that the license contained within the download
>> is authoritative?  I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, but that leads
>> to a followup question: Do do we note the source download location in
>> the NOTICE file and the more easily found project homepage?
>
> So interesting problem
> So my reading of this:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
>
> suggests to me that we don't need to add anything to the notice file
> that we aren't shipping. (this likely means a separate notice file for
> the convenience build) If we actually get rid of all of the jars in a
> timely manner, that should make the source notice easy. But if we are
> actually shipping code then the license contained by the code is
> authoritative.
>
> --David

Agreed... there are really 2 LICENSE and HEADER files that we need to
deal with.  Source distro and binary distro.  Assuming we're talking
about the binary distro, then I think we should, in fact, assume that
the actual license from the downloaded binary is authoritative.

Unless anyone objects, I'll start heading down that path.

-chip

Mime
View raw message