On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:11 PM, sebb wrote:
On 18/08/2009, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Ant,
I didn't intend to make up stuff on the fly, especially policy.
After having been through the fine points of LICENSE vs. NOTICE so
many
times, I thought the consensus was to put *all* licenses into the
top level
LICENSE file. But having just scoured the official public pages
promulgating
policy, I can't find it.
Let's continue the discussion.
I still believe that it's bad form to put licenses in several
places in
distributions because users might not find them and thereby not
know what
they're getting.
You may consider it bad form, but until it is actually documented as
incubator or ASF policy I wouldn't consider it to be enough to
block a
release. Especially since I am quite sure there will be a debate
about
whether it must be one way or the other.
Surely we should be making things easy for the end-users of the
software?
AIUI ASF policy is for there to be "no surprises".
Having a single starting point - the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the
top-level directory - seems to me to be the way to do this.
I agree.
It's really unfair to expect end-users to trawl around the directory
structure looking for license files, whose names are non-standard.
I didn't say anything about trawling around the directory structure.
But blocking a release because the LICENSE file has a pointer to a
directory vs including the licenses in the file is inappropriate until
either the IPMC or ASF documents that. And I don't mean to imply that
you are suggesting that a release should be blocked due to that.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
