Hi, > The second entry in the Installer LICENSE for the updater is not a binary. > Are you saying we did that wrong?
I'd say it's not required. Having extra stuff in LICENSE is not a legal issue as the minimum requirements have been met, but they may not need to be there. > 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. It's not required, not policy and not even a convention as far as I can see. There have been several discussions on incubator about this in recent time, including one suggestion to list 3rd party Apache licensed software in a separate file instead of not listing it at all. > 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. You'll need to just ask him if you want his opinion, I can't recall any objections so I would guess not. Justin
