On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Forrest Xia wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:23 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > > > > I'm a little confused by the LICENSE and NOTICE in the source. I've > been telling people for years that these should apply to what is actually > in the source, however these appear to be the ones appropriate for the > binary distros. For instance they point to files in the repository folder > which only exists in the binary distro. > > > > That can be debated. And I've seen both styles used. I'm not sure which > style I prefer. Separate source and binary license files may be more > accurate, but they also may be misinterpreted. I do agree that > license/notice in jar files should be source licenses… > > > > In any event, the current source LICENSE file clearly indicates what > applies to source and binaries. A consumer of the source should be able to > easily sort out what applies/doesn't apply… So, I'm fine with it as is… > > Kevan, your vote? > > Was waiting for build to finish. Given the US holidays, etc. I'd give this > a few more days to gather additional votes… > OK, that's fine to wait a couple days for this vote. > > --kevan -- Thanks! Regards, Forrest
