On 17/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:00 PM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17/08/2009, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > >> Given whats being said in the "Thrift release > >> legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party > >> licenses separate, > > > > I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files starting > > at the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE > > file should have pointers to the other license files. > > > apache policy doesn't make this necessary but it is best practice. > it's sebb's call whether he's willing to +1 a release.
What is the ASF policy for 3rd party LICENSEs then? > > >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. > > > > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party code > > included in the propose release. > > > no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated > copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice) So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they require attribution or not. I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require attribution (notice). > > - robert > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
