Are we set, then? On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Chris Chabot <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've added an additional README.svn file, so that the main readme file can > contain just the release based instructions, for the rest everything still > checks out with the php version, so it's got my blessing! :) > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Ian Boston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ahh ok, I now understand, thanks. > > Ian > > > > > > On 30 Apr 2009, at 12:31, Vincent Siveton wrote: > > > > 2009/4/30 Ian Boston <[email protected]>: > >> > >>> > >>> On 30 Apr 2009, at 10:58, Vincent Siveton wrote: > >>> > >>> LICENSE just contains the ASL2 text as per the root LICENSE. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think so and java/LICENSE or php/LICENSE should contain additional > >>>> licenses (specific for the impl) > >>>> > >>> > >>> um, [1] says that the LICENSE should just be the contents of [3], and > >>> NOTICE > >>> should be list any other licenses contained within the distro [2] > >>> > >>> So LICENSE should not contain additional licenses, only ASL2 > >>> > >> > >> You could add specific licenses see for instance [1] or [2] (my models > ;) > >> ). > >> > >> It is only the distributed licenses like Zend for php. In the Java > >> side, we just include libraries, so the NOTICE in the war (generated > >> by Maven) should be enough. > >> > >> But again I prefer that our mentors confirm this legal point. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Vincent > >> > >> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE > >> [2] > >> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/apache-maven/LICENSE.txt > >> > > > > >
