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
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
