On 18/08/2009, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 18/08/2009, Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com> wrote: > >> > >> The vote is now closed with the following results: > >> > >> * +1 votes: 3 (Matthias Wessendorf, Ant Elder, Ian Holsman) > >> * 0 votes: 0 > >> * -1 votes: 0 > >> > >> The vote passes. > > > > I wish to raise an objection - there are several 3rd party libraries > > in the binary release which don't have have corresponding licenses in > > the LICENSE file. > > > > Furthermore, the NOTICE file fails to credit any of the 3rd party > > libraries, apart from Groovy. > > > > > Sebb, as has been said here on this vote thread, legal-discuss@, and > done in previous releases from other TLPs and poddlings, it doesn't > need to do either of those. The LICENSEs _are_ included in separate > license files and that is an OK approach. And AFAICT none of the 3rd > party dependencies require any mention in the NOTICE file, for example > the LEGAL-59 JIRA agrees nothing is required for the BSD license.
No, it doesn't exactly say that. The way I read it currently, the BSD notice needs to go into the NOTICE or LICENSE file, not a license file. Besides, the JIRA is still open. Also not resolved is the fact that the main LICENSE file neither includes nor has pointers to the other licenses. > ...ant > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
