On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:53 PM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
It looks like this vote is done so i'll start a new thread on general@ about this. ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
