On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2012, at 9:08 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> On 25/10/2012, at 5:11 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >> >>> Yes, the jars referenced in the legal docs are pulled in by the >>> packaging process. The expectation was that the material would be >>> brought into any packaging (including the non-asf, but community >>> provided, deb/rpm's). When looking for examples from other ASF >>> projects, IIRC I saw both approaches (I'll have to dig a bit to find >>> the examples that I was looking at). At one point, I had a "*_BINARY" >>> version of both files and the standard files for the source itself, >>> but I then decided to simplify into a single set that would work for >>> both situations. >>> >>> So I guess the question is this: is this an acceptable approach or not? >> >> I don't see a problem with this - someone building the source is going to >> have to accept the licenses of those non-optional dependencies too since >> they'll get dragged down automatically. Perhaps the files could have a >> separator indicating the following apply only to binaries built from the >> sources in future releases? >> > > Yep. I agree with this. Nothing to hold up this release, but a bit of room > for improvement for the next release. :-) > > > Anyway, other than the above, everything looks fine to me. So here is my +1. > > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > >
Thanks for the suggestions Daniel / Brett. We'll make that improvement for the next time. -chip
