On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> wrote: > >>> I prefer to put our license in the file and then, at the bottom, refer >>> to a list of other licenses per dependency (if included in this package), >>> wherein the dependency licenses are in separate files near the dependency. >> >> However, this does not agree with the following [1]: >> >>>>> >> ... >> When an artifact contains code under several licenses, the LICENSE >> file should contain details of all these licenses. For each component >> which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and the license >> under which the component is distributed should be appended to the >> LICENSE file. >> <<< >> >> [1] >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
Pointers are sufficient. > It is also at odds with the Apache HTTPD LICENSE file we've been treating as a > canonical sample. The documentation on www.apache.org/dev may have been > contaminated by well-meaning volunteers and changed from Roy's original > meaning, but I assume that the HTTPD LICENSE and NOTICE files haven't gotten > away from him and are still 100% consonant with both the letter and the intent > of the ALv2. I know more about the letter and intent of the ASF's license and licensing policy than anyone else at the foundation. This was discussed and approved on the licensing list some time ago. > While Roy's suggestion of referencing licenses spread over multiple files > seems like a perfectly sane alternative, I'd argue against documenting it as > best practice unless HTTPD changes their LICENSE file to match. httpd's license refers to small snippets of code all over the tree; all of the licenses are fairly close to BSD. It is simply more convenient to list all of those in one place. Inclusion of entire jar files is different. As is including huge and nasty license files, like the GPL. You do not want to mix all those licenses together, particularly since most of those licenses won't be included in your source distributions. Also, you cannot mix the GPL license in with the others. We are not shipping a combined work as GPL. We can ship an aggregated work, wherein the aggregation consists of separate components in separate directories with their own license files, or we can ship an overlayed work -- where the GPL distribution is unpacked on top of an Apache-licensed distribution. ....Roy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
