Hi, > Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps : > > `In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the > distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
The pointer mentioned there is a file path to a text file in the release containing the full text of the license. The problem with using URLs is that decay over time or their contents may change or the software may be re-released under another license. > Is MIT a special case in this regard? No, the it a condition of the license "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.” and most licenses have a clause similar to this. Note that in a lot of cases you are abiding by this clause if the MIT licensed files in question have MIT headers. However in this case the MIT licensed JS files don’t have license headers. > And in that case, do we need a separate full license entry for each > MIT-licensed component we use? Yes as per terms of the MIT license, but it doesn’t have to be in the LICENSE file, a pointer to the full text is preferred, especially in the case of long/many licenses. > Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out? Sorry I’ve not had a chance to look in detail yet but will do in the next couple of days. Thanks, Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
