The second entry in the Installer LICENSE for the updater is not a binary. Are you saying we did that wrong?
You are correct that it isn't "legally required" by the AL. As I said in my email, it appears to be a convention, not even policy, and we started following that convention with the Installer release. I'm surprised folks are getting rejected. I'd like to know more about what podlings got rejected and why and if sebb supported the rejection. -Alex On 9/9/14 3:23 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >Hi, > >The issue with Open Sans font is different as it is a binary not a source >file. It's Apache licensed but not obviously so. Most Apache licences >software have source headers so you know how they were licensed, but a >binary font file doesn't have a source header that's easily readable (the >metedata in the binary may include the license information), so that >pointer in LICENSE is just making the licensing clear. It's not actually >legally required by the Apache license. > >Thanks, >Justin
