Full license text should go in LICENSE and attributions and notices in NOTICE..
Mvgr, Martin Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > Well, I understand it differently and Thomas (probably looking at other > projects) did this too: > > - LICENSE.txt contains the terms under which the software is licensed. > This is Apache License 2.0 > > - NOTICE contains attributions to included code and the licenses that > it is included under. Some projects choose to reference "foo.LICENSE" > files for "foo". Some choose to put the appropriate licensess into > the NOTICE file. Yet others put these (third party) licenses into the > LICENSE file. > > All of the above are ok IMHO. I personally have a preference for the > first variant. httpd uses the second. I think FOP uses the third. > > Best regards > Henning > > On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:24 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote: >> On 5/27/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On 27/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in >>>> LICENSE.txt. >>>> >>>> Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code >>>> got licensed to us is in NOTICE. >>> Are you sure? >>> >>> That does not seem to agree with the sample NOTICE file: >>> >>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt >>> >>> Nor does it seem to agree with the way that httpd use the NOTICE and >>> LICENSE files: >>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/ >>> >>> As I understand it, the NOTICE file is for attributions. >>> The LICENSE file is for licenses. >>> These may either be included inline, or in separate files referenced >>> from the main LICENSE file. >> That's how I understand it too. >> >> Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
