+1 So long as NOTICE-source is in the SVN and part of the source distribution at an appropriate level, I think the simple NOTICE[.txt] name is good enough.
But either way the scripting trick is perfect and NOTICE-binary is a great differentiator. -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:54 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions) On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > Rob, > > I would add > > 3) What makes it easy for an adopter of a binary release to know what > license > permissions and license conditions and restrictions apply to their use of > the > artifact. > > I agree about the confusion downstream. It also matters how diligent > downstream producers are in handling of their own dependencies. > Exactly. A diligent downstream consumer will want to make sure their own notice file is in order, and that presumes our is as well. Maybe we just have two source files in our SVN: NOTICE-source and NOTICE-binary And then have the build script rename the source version when creating the source tarballs. And concatenate them for the binary release? -Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:38 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org > Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions) > > > [ ... ] > > Two considerations: > > 1) What is required for Apache notice policy > > and > > 2) What makes it easier for downstream consumers to comply with > whatever notice policy they may wish to implement for their releases > > Personally I think it is very confusing for downstream consumers if we > have a notice file filed with notices for modules that are not > actually included in the release. Not very helpful for them producing > their own notices. > > [ ... ] >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
