On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:21 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > wrote:
(snip) >> 2 - Assuming that *some* solution for dependency downloads is >> achieved, do we assume that the license contained within the download >> is authoritative? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, but that leads >> to a followup question: Do do we note the source download location in >> the NOTICE file and the more easily found project homepage? > > So interesting problem > So my reading of this: > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license > > suggests to me that we don't need to add anything to the notice file > that we aren't shipping. (this likely means a separate notice file for > the convenience build) If we actually get rid of all of the jars in a > timely manner, that should make the source notice easy. But if we are > actually shipping code then the license contained by the code is > authoritative. > > --David Agreed... there are really 2 LICENSE and HEADER files that we need to deal with. Source distro and binary distro. Assuming we're talking about the binary distro, then I think we should, in fact, assume that the actual license from the downloaded binary is authoritative. Unless anyone objects, I'll start heading down that path. -chip
