On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If it's checked into svn then by definition it is in our release > artifacts since our source release is a snapshot of the source tree.
Libraries used only by Derby developers during development are already excluded from official distributions. This would be the first instance where the source distribution would exclude something that would be in Apache's Subversion repository, so we should definitely be careful here. > Not sure that's correct, the proposed policy indicates an entry in the > NOTICE file is required. > > </snip> > > http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html Both the previous version of the policy and this one fail to address whether access via Subversion to a library licensed under a non-authorized license (i.e. anything besides a class A license in the policy linked above) is distribution and thus requires addition of notice to the NOTICES file. This is an important question, one worth getting an definitive answer for, but one which I currently don't have the time to chase down. Such libraries are already available via Apache's Subversion server without such notice, demonstrated by the links in my previous mail. I would suggest that anyone sincerely interested in the issue take it up on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and refrain from checking anything into the repository until they get a definitive answer. regards, andrew
