sebb wrote:
On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 3rd party
>>>
>> > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party licences.
>> > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain copies of
>> > the AL for every ASF product.
>> >
>>
>> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other licenses?
>> These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF projects.
>>
>>
>
> See the last paragraph of:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>
>
"or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the third-party
license" - which we in the NOTICE file.
But they need to go in the LICENSE file, see:
http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
Did you not read the next paragraph?
There is not a legal requirement here that it must be in the LICENSE
file itself - if so, please point me to the place in the license. This
is page is to provide "guidance" (see the first sentence), not be the
ultimate authority on what exactly is legally permissible for distributions.
If you look at many other ASF projects in the incubator and outside,
you'll see that this is not an enforced policy - this is simply telling
developers one way to get started here.
Can other people please chime in here?
I have never ever seen this enforced and I do not believe its a
requirement. Just to summarize - do we need to 1) include all the
licenses for all our dependencies in a single libary or can we 2) have
our top LICENSE file which is ASL and then have individual LICENSE files
for each library in the lib/ directory.
I think not allowing the second would be a HUGE mistake. It makes it
much clearer which license applies to which file.
Dan
--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
