On 03/23/12 08:43, Rob Weir wrote:
...
Further searching helps here ;-) I have found [4]: <quote> ... All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should be included in the LICENSE document. This LICENSE (courtesy of Apache HTTPD) is a good example. The Apache License is at the top of the LICENSE document. After that, the license for each non-Apache licensed component is included, along with a clear explanation of which files that license applies to. ... </quote> Thus, I derive from this best practice that an identification of the files to which the mentioned license in the LICENSE file applies to should be given. But note the further complexity with AOO, that we have binary as well as source packages in our release. And our binary packages includes 3rd party category-b libraries that are not included in our source package. So we need to make this clear somehow in our LICENSE. Maybe we need a LICENCE_source and LICENCE_binary file in SVN that contains the respective. Then we can rename or cat that together to produce the appropriate license for a package.
This is not accurate. As I have mentioned tirelessly there is not such thing as a source release and a binary release, just a release. That means the one true LICENSE file includes all the source and binary components. Rob's statement is not exactly false because we have an exception in our release process as for the italian case (and so far only the italian case) we will be bundling GPLd dictionaries. Adding the GPL to our LICENSE file would be pretty confusing for our users, besides this is only for the italian case, so I think for that case having the GPL in the dictionary should be enough. Also, we should add a disclaimer that dictionaries (if included) don't constitute derivate works. All just IMHO, I won't block any attempt to automate the generation of those files, in fact, I think I'll just not touch those files anymore :). Pedro.
