incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shanti Subramanyam <Shanti.Subraman...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Date Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:57:27 GMT
Since we have two packages with different LICENSE and NOTICE files, is 
it okay to name them as follows :
. LICENSE_php.txt, NOTICE_php.txt
. LICENSE_rails.txt, NOTICE_rails.txt


Craig L Russell wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sebb wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN.
>> Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby 
>> license:
>> This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code.
> There are a few parts in the olio distribution that we need to consider:
> 1. Olio code written in Ruby that we wrote and license under Apache 
> license.
> 2. Unmodified third party Ruby code under the Ruby license. The 
> resolved.html says we can have an external dependency on these files. 
> We just cannot distribute them. So we need to remove the files from 
> the distribution and provide instructions for our users how to obtain 
> and install them. I'd guess that the Rails implementation (assuming 
> that we depend on some specific unmodified version of Rails) falls 
> into this category.
>>> Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.
>> Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)?
> Verbatim is preferred, as we can't assume that a link can be followed 
> just because a user has obtained the distribution.
>> Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file.
> RIght. No matter how many times I read them, I cannot remember the 
> rules without having them in front of me.
> Craig
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
> 408 276-5638
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message