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] [Closed] (LEGAL-308) License files in shaded jar files
Date Sun, 14 May 2017 17:12:04 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-308?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Stephan Ewen closed LEGAL-308.
------------------------------
    Resolution: Fixed

> 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