On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>... >>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/esme/trunk/THIRD-PARTY.txt >>> >>> Format looks ok but I don't think we can release with dependencies >>> that have unknown licenses. >>> Those should be tracked down or eliminated, IMO. >> >> But I added in the file "We've tracked down the licenses for these >> dependents accordingly: " with the details lower in the file. Do we >> need more than that? > > Ah sorry, didn't realize the last paragraph refers to those licenses, my bad. > > I have reformatted that file to make things clearer, and I think asm > and cglib still need clarification, if I read your mvn site output > correctly.
Thanks for the tip about the other two - I didn't realize that they were also unknown cglib - Apache 2.0 license - http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/cglib/cglib/2.2 asm - tracked from http://scala-tools.org/mvnsites-snapshots/maven-scala-plugin/dependencies.html to http://asm.ow2.org/license.html But I'm not sure where this OK or not - it is not an Apache 2.0 license. Could you check this. ASM appears to be included in a variety of other OSS apps, so I'm hoping that will be usable. > > -Bertrand >
