I'm not arguing that he didn't suggest that we *should* have only a single LICENSE and NOTICE file, but that is different than *must*. I was also reading that in context of the previous statement that the top-level LICENSE and NOTICE files were incorrect and, subsequently, that the extra files were confusing. I took that to mean that if the top-level files were correct, the additional files would be less of an issue. Particularly when taken together with Marvin's message in the [DICSUSS] thread [1] explicitly discussing the sub-package LICENSE and NOTICE files; his advice was they needed to be reduced to be minimally complete for their respective sub-package, just like the top-level LICENSE and NOTICE file must be minimally complete for the whole release.
That said, I do think that it might be better to remove the extra LICENSE and NOTICE files, particularly since we won't be distributing the individual PyPI packages through ASF channels so it is quite possible that the legal requirements do not apply (and the file headers should be sufficient for PyPI). [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201309.mbox/%3CCAAS6=7hta13ghbbwwy3-x+bz5i38x4uom+cysv7q13x+azp...@mail.gmail.com%3E On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Peter Hartmann <[email protected]>wrote: > W dniu 24.09.2013 o 20:27 Cory Johns <[email protected]> pisze: > > > Sebb didn't say that we *must* have *only* top-level LICENSE and NOTICE >> files, just that: 1) the top-level LICENSE file was incomplete and the >> top-level NOTICE file contained items it shouldn't; 2) that (possibly >> because of point 1) the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the sub-directories >> would be confusing to the reviewers and end-users. >> > > With respect, I think he said exactly that: > > "There should be a single NOTICE and LICENSE file in the parent > directory (allura/) which covers all the contents (and nothing else)." > > At least that's the way I read it, "single NOTICE and LICENSE (...) and > nothing else" looks and sounds quite definitive to me. > > > Trying to come up with some process or program to add or remove licenses >> when building a release might be nice, but I'm not sure that it should >> block our initial release. >> > > I'm pretty shure it shouldn't :) > > On a NOTICE point, if that's how it is determined - perfectly fine. > Perhaps I'll propose some better wording to these legal docs, If I'll be > able to someday :( >
