Hi, > Regarding the license/notice being different for binary vs. source releases > if anyone has > pointers to examples of this that would be helpful.
As per [1] the source LICENSE should only mention what's bundled in the source bundle and the binary LICENSE should only mention what's bundled in the binary release. I think you have the content right (hence my +1) just that there's no need to mention the binary parts in the source release LICENSE. Having extra content in license is not as bad than having missing licences. I'd suggest (and it's only a suggestion) having two files (eg LICENSE.src and LICENSE.bin) in version control and put in right one into each bundle (and rename to LICENSE) as part of your release process. There are other approaches ie construct each LICENSE file from parts, but this seems the simplest way to me. Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
