Question on License files

[Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>]

We have had a practice of having different licenses for the "source" and
"bin" distribution.  The source distribution, consisting (usually) of
just the sources in SVN, has just the Apache license, typically.

The "bin" distribution has collected licenses beyond this, corresponding
to the various licenses of the additional "jars" being distributed. 

There is also a "top level" license, in SVN, which is a file at the same
svn level as all the projects in a particular entity (such as the
Sandbox, uimaj, uima-as, etc.).  These are currently not done
consistently - some copy the "binary" distribution, others the source. 

Should we be doing it this way, or just keeping the one license
associated with the Binary distribution?

-Marshall

Re: Question on License files

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> Should we be doing it this way, or just keeping the one license
> associated with the Binary distribution?

There is no one correct way to do this. I personally prefer to have a
license file only cover material that's actually included in the
associated package, but such accuracy requires quite a bit of license
tracking for a complex project. Having a single license file that
covers both source and binary packages is easier to manage.

BR,

Jukka Zitting