Hi all,
I see the license topic is really not simple ;o) On 23/01/14 08:38, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> - To (1)(c): Also I thought it is fine to have the >>³third-party-licences² >> contained in the LICENSE document. See at [2]: "Apache releases should >> contain a copy of each license, usually contained in the LICENSE >>document." > >LICENSE is LICENSE, NOTICE is NOTICE, as reported by [2]: you can search >general@incubator ML archives for countless discussions about this. >As a rule of thumb, when you include a 3rd party library's license in >LICENSE (only if such license is enlisted as compatible with AL 2.0, as >you know), you need to put a copyright notice in NOTICE. >Naturally, this needs to be done only for artifacts effectively >including 3rd party libraries either in source or binary form. > >See some examples of NOTICE files from other projects: > >http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/legal/NOTICE. >txt >http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/syncope/trunk/legal_ext/NOTICE >http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/wink/trunk/wink-assembly/apache-wink/binar >ydist/NOTICE > >Further, when you include 3rd party source code, this also needs to be >performed for source releases; > >http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bval/trunk/NOTICE >http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/trunk/NOTICE > >This is the only point for which I am in doubt it could be blocker for >the release under vote: mentors, please express your opinion, thanks. Thanks for the clarification. For me it is more an improvement for next release and not a blocker for this. But I would rely on the decision of the mentors. > >> - To (2): You are right, the automatic generated DISCLAIMER slightly >> differ. But as far as I have seen at least all include the required >> DISCLAIMER text from [3]. > >At least I'd take as improvement to put in every artifacts the *same* >DISCLAIMER file. Agree to do this as an improvement for next release. Kind regards, Michael
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
