www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bundling an AL Font
Date Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:12:08 GMT
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:06 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26 June 2014 15:54, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> > Thanks Sebb,
> >
> > Would you agree that the how-to [1] does not indicate this and should be
> > amended?  Maybe by replacing this sentence:
> > "Assuming once again that that the bundled dependency itself contains no
> > bundled subcomponents under other licenses and thus the ALv2 applies
> > uniformly to all files, there is no need to modify LICENSE."
> >
> > With
> >
> > "Assuming once again that that the bundled dependency itself contains no
> > bundled subcomponents under other licenses and thus the ALv2 applies
> > uniformly to all files, there is no need to add another copy of the ALv2
> > license, but if the dependency is third-party, the LICENSE file should
> > include:
> >
> > 'Includes Foo V1.2 under the Apache License 2.0'"
> >
>
> Seems good to me - any dissenters?


I'd make the phrasing consistent with the BSD/MIT instructions. But agree
with the intent.

Mime
View raw message