On 8/2/07, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> AIUI including full license text in the LICENSE file is preferable but
> isn't absolutely necessary. giving a pointer to the license should be
> ok.
>
> what would be very useful to me (and other folks who need to check the
> releas
On 8/1/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ("licenses for each dependency library are
> > > reproduced in the lib directory along with the library").
> >
> >
> > That's not viable. As Niclas suggested, the target of all this is la
On 7/31/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the idea of the license maven artifact. It takes quite some
> effort in determining the actual license of any dependency (I've been
> on a license hunt myself several times). Having the license published
> in the repository next to th
On 8/1/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is about sources, not binaries, right? If you don't include
> > the source but only the binary (.jar), then the situation might
> > be different.
>
> It's my understanding that the same applies to both source and binary. But
> you're co
On 8/1/07, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
> >
> > "you should append their license(s) to the LICENSE file at the top of
> the
> > distribution, or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the
> > third-party license"
> From:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>
> "you should append their license(s) to the LICENSE file at the top of the
> distribution, or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the
> third-party license"
You didn't quote the beginning of the paragraph:
> If the distrib
On 7/31/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Actually I was wondering about this recommendation of having all (non
> > ASL)
> > license files for dependencies in a *single* LICENSE file. It seems to
> > me
> > that it's a maintenance nightmare when you have a lot of dependencies
On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg,
> its
> > preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a
> > single LI
Hi Matthieu,
On Jul 31, 2007, at 8:51 AM, Matthieu Riou wrote:
I'd rather have all the specific licenses each
in there file reproduced side by side with the library the license is
applied on (with similar namings, i.e. dom4j-1.3.LICENSE) and a simple
pointer in the main LICENSE file ("licenses
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 00:26, Matthieu Riou wrote:
> I've seen the documentation as well but couldn't find the justification
> behind it.
I think it relates to Legal Folks like single files, which can be read as a
Word Document once(!) and then poked around inside. Only developers are fond
On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 from me.
> > >
> > > Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg,
> > > its
> > > preferred
I like the idea of the license maven artifact. It takes quite some
effort in determining the actual license of any dependency (I've been
on a license hunt myself several times). Having the license published
in the repository next to the (jar) artifact (and included in the
artifacts META-INF folder)
On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg,
> > its
> > preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a
> > single
I must agree about the nightmare.
Including separate files is much easier and could be automated by
maven or any other build tool much more easily...
On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > Some of the same
On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +1 from me.
>
> Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg, its
> preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a
> single LICENSE file, and have src and binary distro's unpack into
> different
>
+1 from me.
Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg, its
preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a
single LICENSE file, and have src and binary distro's unpack into different
folders.
...ant
On 7/30/07, Graham Turrell (gmail) <[EMAIL
The Woden incubator project is developing a WSDL 2.0 processor in
conjunction with efforts of the W3C to deliver the new WSDL
2.0 specification. The Woden project team would like to ask the
Incubator PMC for approval to publish the Woden Milestone 7b release to
support the
upcoming Apache WS Axis2
17 matches
Mail list logo
