From general-return-18562-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Fri Jun 13 09:44:17 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 91414 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2008 09:44:16 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Jun 2008 09:44:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 68348 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2008 09:44:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 68208 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2008 09:44:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 68197 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jun 2008 09:44:16 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:44:16 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of hyandell@gmail.com designates 209.85.198.240 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.198.240] (HELO rv-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.198.240) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:43:24 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id k29so4327410rvb.0 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:43:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=U1zB6sJc9GSNXj9krB87G4b+6Ixj8ipIkNfKkxJqsnQ=; b=fGaZ3MGN1Za8hIy6VGLxrvHnG9fbyeDCF5Wsg6u4uip1uJVAXCHEx7EVe9C06G+dzo HvXp5hSQNr7Fdb5nKzSVMRnbzybH8Kk9UdaUR3W+08NESjhyrR2TbnkJsPHi17LiPghE iK7KC0LI5OdBb4TgCMQ8a4O40OwwKg6X/gAWQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=NtlXFb/I92185CrepiOirt03fzy8pNBOo75ehB4Sr2eFV8VU6Ujzrp7ym14532/vvT E5oDKyMysSjg51DFvAsaRIVFW4FKm0xJ8hwepr+qwWF69YOiiWLjaOHUzwx9EAkEunGA FtJQCGIWI4irM3SV8FKUxf/fpzA1KymdOA8Hg= Received: by 10.114.103.4 with SMTP id a4mr2760426wac.172.1213350222630; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.159.2 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2d12b2f00806130243u5ece5a8dtd84344deee6d5df@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:43:42 -0700 From: "Henri Yandell" Sender: hyandell@gmail.com To: "Dan Diephouse" Subject: Re: License files - separate or one file Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org, general@incubator.apache.org In-Reply-To: <47F406C8.8070903@mulesource.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <47F10661.8050904@gmail.com> <47F158F4.5030602@mulesource.com> <25aac9fc0803311459k63ea3a47x26ed3304514d0e17@mail.gmail.com> <47F3C17E.3070406@mulesource.com> <47F3C5BF.2080307@mulesource.com> <25aac9fc0804021259n3ddbdab2s2306437d65d97199@mail.gmail.com> <25aac9fc0804021508h636d50d5id663d71637c21c9b@mail.gmail.com> <47F406C8.8070903@mulesource.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 058f8bd71653c3ce X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on 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 wrote: > Can someone clarify the below for us on general@incubator? > > sebb wrote: >> >> On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb wrote: >>> > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller wrote: >>> > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > 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 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