I'll ask on legal-discuss On 9/4/14 11:52 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> What do you think of the idea of not having the dictionaries in Git and >> having the release packaging script get them? > >Means a release package script could be broken if the latest version >don't work for some reason. I don't think it vital that users have the >most up to date dictionaries. I'm sure you have a paper one on your >shelf, do you buy a new one every year? But no objection if you add a >target to get the latest. > >> 2) I would leave the names of the README file as it comes in the zip so >> there is less chance for confusion as to who wrote that file. > >Fair enough. > >> The reason I think this is because [1] says "add a pointer to the >> dependency's license within the source tree and a short note summarizing >> its licensing", and the text attempts to follow the template given in >>[1]. > >The short license is optional so I took the middle ground, ie make it >clear that they are copyright / licensed someone else by looking at the >top level licence file, but not including the full READMEs. If people >really want to know the full details they can look there. > >> I know later it says: "NOTE: It's also possible to include the text of >>the >> 3rd party license within the LICENSE file. This is best reserved for >>short >> licenses.", but IMO, the license is all of the licenses in the README, >>not >> just the "top-level" one for Kevin so I consider this a long license. > >Given Kevin's one is the license for the bundled bits, and then each bit >has it own license, it made sense to me to include it in the top level. >Given we're bundling his work I'm sure he would prefer if his name was >mentioned at the top level, even if not doing so compiles with our >minimum legal rules, he may think that we were not crediting him. > >Thanks, >Justin
