On Jan 29, 2008 12:08 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 29/01/2008, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > An alternative to what we do now with all the licenses embedded in the > one > > > top level LICENSE file is to include the licenses in individual files > > > either > > > in a separate licenses folder or in the same folder as the dependency > so > > > its > > > real easy to see if any are missing and what they apply to. I thought > that > > > was discouraged but it seems to be becoming acceptable again and makes > > > thing > > > clear i think. > > > > > > +1 Having separate license files, one for each dependency where > appropriate, > > doesn't mean we can't concat them together into a top level if that is > > required. > > I'm not sure that separate LICENSE files are allowed (tried to find > that out recently), but even if they are, AFAIK the main LICENSE file > would have to have pointers to the additional files, so could not be a > vanilla AL 2.0 anyway. >
The closest I can find to matching policy says : "...Otherwise, 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." - http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html So that makes it sound like it would be acceptable to have the top level LICENSE just point to a folder containing the other licenses. Several poddling releases that do this have been approved by the IPMC in the recent past and other non-incubating releases i've seen also do this. ...ant
