On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 7:01 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Selon Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > One more thing to verify. The code has a dependency on asm. I don't > > know where the music has stopped in the epic saga of what is OK, what > > is not OK re third party dependencies for ASF projects, but we will > > need to get this blessed: > > > > http://asm.objectweb.org/license.html > > > > Looks fine to me, but should check on legal-discuss unless this has > > already been done. > > This is a 3-clauses BSD license. It is already cited in > category A (authorized licenses) in the "ASF Legal Previously Asked > Questions" > (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html) and in the "draft third-party > licensing policy" http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#category-a. > > I have added the following blurb in the NOTICE.txt file and committed it. > > This products depends on (but does not include) the > ASM library developed by INRIA and France Telecom. > ASM is available under a 3-clauses BSD license > (http://asm.objectweb.org/license.html) > > Nabla does not distribute the ASM code, but does have a mandatory dependency > on > it. > > Does the NOTICE.txt explanation seem sufficient to adhere to Apache policy ? > Do > you think I should add the ASM license itself ?
It's the other way - you don't need to include that in the NOTICE unless we distribute asm with the download. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
