Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0AFB200AC8 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 21:20:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id CF315160A36; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 22C81160968 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 21:20:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 84034 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2016 19:20:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@taverna.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@taverna.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@taverna.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 84023 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jun 2016 19:20:50 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 19:20:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id D1F6DC0773 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.164 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.164 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.282, HTML_MESSAGE=2, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YmTH7qeNnDuI for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with SMTP id 2A7095FAD5 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 83995 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jun 2016 19:20:44 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 19:20:44 +0000 Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id F3B361A03EB for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id n184so151102132wmn.1 for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 12:20:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJSBtUNKBaB593sCAF2ayhhfoh2rNHXVNdNX/JFQKvCJAjgPI17gDrb+vVegKxtyLiJP/yS0objwwBU4Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.88.206 with SMTP id m197mr1090093wmb.43.1465327242610; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 12:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.163.197 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:20:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [84.92.48.26] Received: by 10.28.163.197 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:20:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:20:42 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [apache/incubator-taverna-mobile] Announcement Feature (#14) From: Stian Soiland-Reyes To: "apache/incubator-taverna-mobile" Cc: "apache/incubator-taverna-mobile" , Mention , dev@taverna.incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11442b46c69ae70534b51553 archived-at: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 19:20:52 -0000 --001a11442b46c69ae70534b51553 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Uh. .. well https://github.com/ribot/android-boilerplate/blob/master/LICENSE Says Apache license 2.0, and there is no NOTICE file or copyright statement in their individual files (spot check of 5, you can check the ones you used), so it should be fine to use without any special attribution. You can out an attribution to our README.md perhaps, but not as a legally required attribution in NOTICE. See http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#redistribution 4a) is satisfied as we include LICENSE 4b) is satisfied because by our added ASF headers. 4c) is satisfied if the files we used don't have any copyright headers etc 4d) is satisfied as there was no NOTICE On 7 Jun 2016 7:17 a.m., "Sagar" wrote: > @stain I have added the licence in all new > files java and xml files. > > I have taken some standard class from Ribot Android Boilerplate > . > *Which licence have I to use in this case?* > > Other files that doest have the licence. I will add licence into the file > simultaneously when I will refactor the code in MVP architecture. > > =E2=80=94 > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > , > or mute the thread > > . > --001a11442b46c69ae70534b51553--