incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Kirkwood <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Date Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:14:10 GMT
Thanks,  Alex..

John -- would it be reasonable to fix this in the next release barring
any other major issues?

thanks..  Dan

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Alex Harui <> wrote:
> On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <> wrote:
>>Thanks,  John..   I'm confused on this.   According to
>> :
>>`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:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message