Hi Dale,
the others were referenced in the DEPENDENCIES file.
As far as I know we only need to add stuff to NOTICE and LICENSE if the license
and notice versions of the included libs require us to do that. So only for
those did I add something. For the rest it should be sufficient to mention them
in the DEPENDENCIES and bundle their license agreements. Am I correct with that
assumption (Still learning this licensing stuff ;-) )?
By the way … I just pushed an update that eliminated the d3.legend.js from our
repo.
Chris
Am 03.10.17, 20:52 schrieb "Dale LaBossiere" <dml.apa...@gmail.com>:
Hi Chris,
Why does appended-resources/licenses contains more than the licenses than
those referenced by META-INF/LICENSE files?
I see just MIT, BSD 3-Clause and BSD 2.Clause referenced from the LICENSE
files.
Why are these present:
apache-license-version-2.0.txt (will be necessary if gson and
metrics-core are added to LICENSE :-)
cddl+gplv2*
eclipse-public-license*
Justin, just double checking, I thought we MUST include ALL BUNDLED
external artifacts in our LICENSE? If not, at least “can” they be included?
Just seems best.
Specifically gson and metrics-core are bundled but absent. And I find it
confusing that our NOTICE includes info for a bundled item that’s not mentioned
in our LICENSE (metrics-core).
Note, our current release’s binary bundle LICENSE included references for
them.
I’d also like to pull on the JSR-166 reference that Chris added to LICENSE.
Is that supposed to be in NOTICE? I see that in nifi that’s where they have
it along with the metric-core reference (like we have in our NOTICE)
https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/master/nifi-assembly/NOTICE
<https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/master/nifi-assembly/NOTICE>
It also seems wrong to have a JSR-166 reference in our LICENSE and not have
some corresponding license reference to go with it.
Thanks!
— Dale
