incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: Multi-licensed dependencies
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:37:43 GMT
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

>> I prefer to put our license in the file and then, at the bottom, refer
>> to a list of other licenses per dependency (if included in this package),
>> wherein the dependency licenses are in separate files near the dependency.
>
> However, this does not agree with the following [1]:
>
>>>>
> ...
> When an artifact contains code under several licenses, the LICENSE
> file should contain details of all these licenses. For each component
> which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and the license
> under which the component is distributed should be appended to the
> LICENSE file.
> <<<
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses

It is also at odds with the Apache HTTPD LICENSE file we've been treating as a
canonical sample.  The documentation on www.apache.org/dev may have been
contaminated by well-meaning volunteers and changed from Roy's original
meaning, but I assume that the HTTPD LICENSE and NOTICE files haven't gotten
away from him and are still 100% consonant with both the letter and the intent
of the ALv2.

While Roy's suggestion of referencing licenses spread over multiple files
seems like a perfectly sane alternative, I'd argue against documenting it as
best practice unless HTTPD changes their LICENSE file to match.

Marvin Humphrey

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


Mime
View raw message