On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <dangogh@apache.org> wrote:
>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
>http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
>
>`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
>distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
>
>Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a
>separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
>Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
AIUI, a "pointer" is the text from that web page:
This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
MIT license. For details, see deps/superwidget/LICENSE.txt.
Your build/packaging should copy the dependency's MIT License into a file
in the release package. MIT-licensed projects are supposed to have their
own copy of the MIT license in their release distributions with a
project-specific copyright. The pointer isn't supposed to be a
third-party URL since URLs are not stable, although I would have probably
advised you to fix that in the next release. IMO, it isn't a major flaw
for an incubating release.
Instead of a "pointer" you can copy whole license files into LICENSE, but
many prefer "pointers" to keep the LICENSE file shorter.
Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
|