incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Diephouse <dan.diepho...@mulesource.com>
Subject Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Date Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:41:48 GMT
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>
>> Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>> sebb wrote:
>>>> On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <dan.diephouse@mulesource.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >>> -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the
3rd 
>>>>> party
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>  > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd
party 
>>>>> licences.
>>>>> >>  > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain

>>>>> copies of
>>>>> >>  > the AL for every ASF product.
>>>>> >>  >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other

>>>>> licenses?
>>>>> >>  These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF

>>>>> projects.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > See the last paragraph of:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> "or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the third-party
>>>>> license" - which we in the NOTICE file.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But they need to go in the LICENSE file, see:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>>>>
>>> Did you not read the next paragraph?
>>>>> There is not a legal requirement here that it must be in the LICENSE
>>>>> file itself - if so, please point me to the place in the license. 
>>>>> This
>>>>> is page is to provide "guidance" (see the first sentence), not be the
>>>>> ultimate authority on what exactly is legally permissible for 
>>>>> distributions.
>>>>>
>>>>>  If you look at many other ASF projects in the incubator and outside,
>>>>> you'll see that this is not an enforced policy - this is simply 
>>>>> telling
>>>>> developers one way to get started here.
>>>>>
>>> Can other people please chime in here?
>>>
>>> I have never ever seen this enforced and I do not believe its a 
>>> requirement. Just to summarize - do we need to 1) include all the 
>>> licenses for all our dependencies in a single libary or can we 2) 
>>> have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and then have individual 
>>> LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
>>>
>>> I think not allowing the second would be a HUGE mistake. It makes it 
>>> much clearer which license applies to which file.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>> I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
>>
>> Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in 
>> a single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is 
>> ASL and then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the 
>> lib/ directory.
>
> I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In 
> fact, the document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to 
> the LICENSE file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license 
> files. So, IMO, 2) is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
>
> I do think LICENSE information in jar files should be complete (i.e. 
> jar files shouldn't reference information that would only be found in 
> a full binary distribution). It looks like your jars are ok, in that 
> respect.
>
> On the other hand, I believe there must be only one NOTICE file. I see 
> multiple NOTICE files in your jars. I haven't downloaded the full 
> distribution given the number of changes which seem to be occurring... 
> Hard to keep track.
Each jar has a NOTICE file in META-INF/NOTICE. The source and binary 
distributions each have a NOTICE file in /.

Where are the multiple NOTICE files?

Dan

-- 
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message