Andrew McIntyre wrote: ...
Well, well. As it so happens, just last month there was a discussion of this on legal-discuss. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6].
...
So, while not a part of the official policy on the matter, the not-so-unofficial policy is that if you check it into Subversion, follow the NOTICE requirements as if it were a release, since Subversion is publication (from [2]) while not necessarily distribution. The fact that other projects aren't following this exactly is no excuse for Derby not to be diligent in light of the discussion above. So, if you want to check junit.jar in to the repository, it should be ok. Just be sure to follow the requirements in the policy linked above, as junit.jar is a Class B licensed artifact according to that policy. Once that has been followed, it should also be acceptable for us to include it in an official release, since if the policy has been followed to the letter, all necessary legal requirements should be satisfied. Crossing my fingers I didn't mess up the citations, and also I'm not a lawyer, etc., etc., andrew
Thanks for doing the research on this, Andrew, and I agree. I've watched the debates over the last couple years over whether the code in svn constitutes a release (not surprisingly, there are diverse opinions). It's better to provide info in the NOTICE where it may not be strictly required (or may not seem to be), than to miss including info that turns out to be required.
-jean
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
