xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <shane_curc...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:46:08 GMT
(Butting in with my non-lawyerly non-PMC-member opinion)

Yes, I think legally we do have to include the licenses for other
apache jars that each subproject re-ships.  In some ways it's silly,
but remember with 1.1 of the license, the name of the subproject (Ant,
Xerces, etc.) actually appears (or should appear) in the text of the
license, so each subproject technically has it's own license that is
different than every other subproject's.  

Even if it's only that one word in section 4. of the license, they are
different files.  Lawyers seem to be really picky that way...

Side note: along with all this work on existing .jars checked in, we
should also double-check that all subprojects ship with their own
licenses in standard places with standard names.  That way when Xalan,
for example, wants to check in a version of Ant, we can just copy the
license from the ant distro that we get the .jar from and check them
both in together.  (Most projects already do this; just not everyone
does it in exactly the same way).

- Shane

---- you Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org> wrote ----
> Do we need to include an extra LICENSE.crimson even if it uses the
> same license as all other files that are part of the distribution
(the
> next, not the last one which shipped with JAXP 1.1 RI)? Thanks

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message