On 9/25/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/25/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's one important gotcha:
> -> the NOTICE file has information on the licenses of various third
> party jars, which in some cases are not a subset of ALv2, even if
> compatible. I believe that info should go into the LICENSE file; but
> can't find an authortive reference on our website right now. Cliff,
> Robert?
IANALVP ;-)
sounds like a job for cliff or legal-discuss...
(they'll probably talk about collective licenses for collective works
so i'm not sure whether it'll be a definite legal don't do or not...)
This is important because the notice file cannot modify the
> terms of the LICENSE that are supposed to apply to the work as a
> whole, whereas obviously a LICENSE file can modify LICENSE terms.
That is correct. LICENSE should be the collection of all licenses
that file is under. See:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE
+1
i would say that users would reasonably expect licenses to be
contained in the LICENSE file and notices in the NOTICE file. this
best practice is in the release management guide (or rather a TODO for
it is :-/
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
