You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com> on 2008/04/03 00:20:56 UTC
Re: License files - separate or one file
Can someone clarify the below for us on general@incubator?
sebb wrote:
> On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
>> > > >
>> > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in a
>> > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and
>> > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In fact, the
>> > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the LICENSE
>> > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files. So, IMO, 2)
>> > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
>> >
>> > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
>> > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
>>
>>
>> AIUI this is not policy
>>
>>
>
> My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
> formally documented.
>
>
--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Did this get resolved Dan?
We had a thread on this recently and there was definitely consensus
towards 2) being fine.
The only disagreement iirc between Sebb and I was whether it should be
in the LICENSE or whether it should be in a different file (the
README, or maybe a dedicated and structured THIRD_PARTY_README).
Hen
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Dan Diephouse
<da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
> Can someone clarify the below for us on general@incubator?
>
> sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our
>>> dependencies in a
>>> > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is
>>> ASL and
>>> > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/
>>> directory.
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In
>>> fact, the
>>> > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the
>>> LICENSE
>>> > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files.
>>> So, IMO, 2)
>>> > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
>>> >
>>> > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
>>> > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
>>>
>>>
>>> AIUI this is not policy
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
>> formally documented.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> MuleSource
> http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Dan Diephouse
<da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
> Can someone clarify the below for us on general@incubator?
probably needs more than someone (i'm on the legal committee) and more
like consensus
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Did this get resolved Dan?
We had a thread on this recently and there was definitely consensus
towards 2) being fine.
The only disagreement iirc between Sebb and I was whether it should be
in the LICENSE or whether it should be in a different file (the
README, or maybe a dedicated and structured THIRD_PARTY_README).
Hen
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Dan Diephouse
<da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
> Can someone clarify the below for us on general@incubator?
>
> sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our
>>> dependencies in a
>>> > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is
>>> ASL and
>>> > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/
>>> directory.
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In
>>> fact, the
>>> > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the
>>> LICENSE
>>> > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files.
>>> So, IMO, 2)
>>> > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
>>> >
>>> > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
>>> > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
>>>
>>>
>>> AIUI this is not policy
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
>> formally documented.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> MuleSource
> http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org