It's a basic "legal" question... maybe I'm blind, but couldn't find a definitive answer, so I'm a worried to act without the blessing of others.
We got some binaries in the source code, which were created at the FreeMarker project, and technically can't have a source code: src/main/misc/overloadedNumberRules/prices.ods src/manual/en_US/docgen-originals/figures/overview.odg src/manual/en_US/docgen-originals/figures/model2sketch_with_alpha.png src/manual/en_US/docgen-originals/figures/tree_with_alpha.png src/manual/en_US/favicon.png src/manual/en_US/figures/model2sketch.png src/manual/en_US/figures/overview.png src/manual/en_US/figures/tree.png src/manual/en_US/logo.png src/manual/zh_CN/favicon.png src/manual/zh_CN/figures/model2sketch.png src/manual/zh_CN/figures/overview.png src/manual/zh_CN/figures/tree.png src/manual/zh_CN/logo.png Because they are binaries, they have no copyright header, which, at least in some heads (on the Incubator list back then), leads to uncertainty regarding their origin and license. I would think that if I say nothing, then it's implied that the LICENSE at the root applies. But, to make that explicit, currently we have a footnote in the LICENSE: https://github.com/apache/freemarker/blob/2405e61bde8a2d8f74f7ba598b4e1b8ed1e244c1/LICENSE I have looked at some TLP-s back then, and saw that they state nothing about the images (that they have produced, hopefully). So that must be acceptable. Not sure why OpenOffice files would be different then. Anyway, I really would like to get rid of any "footnotes" from LICENSE (or NOTICE). Can I? -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany
