Since we have two packages with different LICENSE and NOTICE files, is
it okay to name them as follows :
. LICENSE_php.txt, NOTICE_php.txt
. LICENSE_rails.txt, NOTICE_rails.txt
Shanti
Craig L Russell wrote:
On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sebb wrote:
I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN.
Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby
license:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code.
There are a few parts in the olio distribution that we need to consider:
1. Olio code written in Ruby that we wrote and license under Apache
license.
2. Unmodified third party Ruby code under the Ruby license. The
resolved.html says we can have an external dependency on these files.
We just cannot distribute them. So we need to remove the files from
the distribution and provide instructions for our users how to obtain
and install them. I'd guess that the Rails implementation (assuming
that we depend on some specific unmodified version of Rails) falls
into this category.
Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.
Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)?
Verbatim is preferred, as we can't assume that a link can be followed
just because a user has obtained the distribution.
Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file.
RIght. No matter how many times I read them, I cannot remember the
rules without having them in front of me.
Craig
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org