Henri Yandell a écrit :
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.
OK. I will remove this paragraph from NOTICE.
Thanks
Luc
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
