www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Bundling an AL Font
Date Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:25:05 GMT
I trust you or Sebb to make the appropriate changes.

From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com<mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Date: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:12 AM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Bundling an AL Font


On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:06 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com<mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com>>
wrote:
On 26 June 2014 15:54, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com<mailto: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