www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephan Ewen (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-308) License files in shaded jar files
Date Wed, 10 May 2017 16:06:04 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-308?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16004921#comment-16004921
] 

Stephan Ewen commented on LEGAL-308:
------------------------------------

[~srowen] Thanks for the answer. Combining the license files works neat when they are in the
original jar files.
I am currently struggling with a generic solution for cases where the original JAR does not
have a license file, and I need to include it as part of the shading setup.

> License files in shaded jar files
> ---------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-308
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-308
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Stephan Ewen
>
> It is a common pattern in many projects to use the Maven shade plugin to build a fat-jar
/ uberjar with dependencies that need to be "relocated" to avoid dependency version conflicts.
> When these dependencies have a License like BSD (that requires inclusion of the license
when redistributing binary versions of the dependency) is it required to put that license
into the shaded jar file as well?
> (my assumption is yes, just wanted to check)



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message