Re: RFC: LICENSE and NOTICE cleanups (ASF release)

2013-09-24 Thread Dave Brondsema
I think sebb's comments could be interpreted either way :) But it sounds like we agree that it's better not to have extra LICENSE & NOTICE files that may confuse people. I like Peter's suggestion of keeping them in the source so that they're ready if we need them later for PyPI releases, and then

Re: RFC: LICENSE and NOTICE cleanups (ASF release)

2013-09-24 Thread Cory Johns
I'm not arguing that he didn't suggest that we *should* have only a single LICENSE and NOTICE file, but that is different than *must*. I was also reading that in context of the previous statement that the top-level LICENSE and NOTICE files were incorrect and, subsequently, that the extra files wer

Re: RFC: LICENSE and NOTICE cleanups (ASF release)

2013-09-24 Thread Peter Hartmann
W dniu 24.09.2013 o 20:27 Cory Johns pisze: Sebb didn't say that we *must* have *only* top-level LICENSE and NOTICE files, just that: 1) the top-level LICENSE file was incomplete and the top-level NOTICE file contained items it shouldn't; 2) that (possibly because of point 1) the LICENSE and NO

Re: RFC: LICENSE and NOTICE cleanups (ASF release)

2013-09-24 Thread Cory Johns
Sebb didn't say that we *must* have *only* top-level LICENSE and NOTICE files, just that: 1) the top-level LICENSE file was incomplete and the top-level NOTICE file contained items it shouldn't; 2) that (possibly because of point 1) the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the sub-directories would be confu

Re: RFC: LICENSE and NOTICE cleanups (ASF release)

2013-09-24 Thread Peter Hartmann
My free time has shortened again, for a while. I only occasionally come home and check email. I hope my comments are not coming too late and will be helpful anyways. About multiple LICENSE: I did set it up this way having future PyPI releases in mind and took care to ensure that the content

Re: RFC: LICENSE and NOTICE cleanups (ASF release)

2013-09-24 Thread Cory Johns
And I think you're right about HTML5 Canvas, so I removed it (branch in first message updated). On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Cory Johns wrote: > My reading of Marvin's reply[1] is that the important thing is the > top-level LICENSE and NOTICE file be complete and minimal, which my changes

Re: RFC: LICENSE and NOTICE cleanups (ASF release)

2013-09-24 Thread Cory Johns
My reading of Marvin's reply[1] is that the important thing is the top-level LICENSE and NOTICE file be complete and minimal, which my changes should address, and that derived-source releases should have their own, complete and minimal for their smaller scope, LICENSE and NOTICE files. (Although,