xmlgraphics-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremias Maerki <...@jeremias-maerki.ch>
Subject Re: Third party license text
Date Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:29:59 GMT
This only refers to source files, i.e. the W3C-licensed sources and any
other source files that may not be ASF-licensed. For external,
pre-compiled dependencies (JAR files) Batik is fine with the current
scheme of stating the licenses.

Concerning xml-apis-ext.jar, please keep in mind that I was only able to
move them into a branch that has never been touched by anyone else than
me. Without the backing of you Batik guys I lost the motivation to
actively pursue this any further. The first thing that would have to be
done is to go to the XML Commons mailing list and sort out the problem
with the branch. I cannot be that those sources are just deposited in
that branch for ever, without being accepted by the other "clients" of
xml-apis.jar" and without a release of XML Commons including the
xml-apis-ext.jar. If this cannot be done properly there, you'll have to
keep the sources in Batik but I'd strongly suggest that you separate
them from the main source tree if only to stress the point that those
sources are not ALv2 licensed.

Generally, I'd update the README file a little to do the same as I've
done in FOP: stating where exactly all the information about licensing
can be found. ATM, you're only mentioning the LICENSE file in there.
I've also written a README.txt in the lib directory which lists all
dependencies. That will make it easier for users to determine which
license overall apply to a project using Apache Batik.

On 17.11.2006 04:33:16 Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> The new release rules[1] say:
> 
>   If A Distribution Contains Code Under Several Licenses, Should It
>   Contain Several License Files?
> 
>     No - all license information should be contained in the LICENSE
>     file.
> 
>     When a distribution contains code under several licenses, the
>     LICENSE file should contain details of all these licenses. For each
>     component which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and
>     the license under which the component is distributed should be
>     appended to the LICENSE file. 
> 
> but does this also apply to bundled binaries (like Batik’s lib/js.jar),
> or just included source files (like sources/org/w3c/dom/svg/SVGRect.java
> — although I’m going to move across to using the xml-apis-ext.jar from
> XML Commons for these files)?  So, should all of Batik’s lib/LICENSE.*
> and lib/build/LICENSE.* contents be moved into the one LICENSE file?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cameron
> 
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html


Jeremias Maerki


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org


Mime
View raw message