On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 19:10, Owen O'Malley<o...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > > Bernd Fondermann wrote: > > I'm not saying that the license is incompatible, I am saying that you > > need to record third party contributions in the NOTICE file. > > The critical reference is: > http://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/autoconf-2.53/html_node/Distributing.html#Distributing
I don't think GNU/FSF resources are authorative or in any way generating binding policy for making releases here at Apache. > In particular, the files generated by autoconf can be distributed under the > same license as the rest of the package. Therefore, although the files > confusing claim to be GPL, they are actually being distributed under the > Apache license. My understanding is that only used components that have a > different license need to be in NOTICE. I believe this is a non-issue. > -- Owen Again, I'm not claiming this is a license issue. And for me being a Java weeny it is not immediately obvious that this is actually a Zookeeper-generated file, not something which is copied or contributed from somewhere else into svn (otherwise it must be attributed as such somewhere.) Looking into svn, I now see this is a generated file, so indeed it doesn't need to be recorded in the LICENSE file. One additional question: What would happen if you would distribute src/c as it is in SVN, namely without all the files from the tar ball? Would that still work for users? Bernd
