On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:31 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 July 2010 16:12, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:10 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 21 July 2010 12:02, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:58 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What is the licence for the Spring Framework code mentioned in NOTICE? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Spring is Apache License 2.0 >>> >>> OK, this needs to be documented in NOTICE or LICENSE. >> >> It is. LICENSE is an AL 2.0 file. I don't see any need to specify it >> differently to the rest of the Apache code. > > For the benefit of users. > > The NOTICE file specifically mentions the Spring Framework code, but > fails to mention what license it uses. > Why should the user have to trawl the Spring website to find out what > the license is? > > Also, the Spring project could potentially change to a different > license later - or add a new license - so IMO it is necessary to > document the license that the code is using.
I've updated the NOTICE to say: "This product includes software from the Spring Framework, under the Apache License 2.0 (see: StringUtils.containsWhitespace())" I still don't see it as a blocker. There's nothing wrong with the beta, but I agree that more details are to the benefit of users. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
