www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sean Busbey (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-308) License files in shaded jar files
Date Fri, 12 May 2017 12:44:04 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-308?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16008058#comment-16008058
] 

Sean Busbey commented on LEGAL-308:
-----------------------------------

FWIW, Apache HBase does this by making use of the remote resources plugin. We maintain a support
file that includes licensing information for dependencies that we bundle that don't properly
include things in their jar and/or pom.

> 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