Hi, > Changing the 4.14 LICENSE and NOTICE won’t help older releases.
I assume we'll have to make point releases of them. > 1) I’m wondering if one of the reasons for the Installer having a checkbox > for SWFObject is because the Installer doesn’t let the customer review > LICENSE and NOTICE of the release before installing, and the checkboxes > effectively take the customer through the LICENSE. Where is this written down as an Apache legal requirement? I think you may be confusing the license with a EULA. If I download the source package I don't have to view the LICENSE or NOTICE. As long as everything is Apache or a compatible license (ie MIT, BSD or W3C) all's good as I have the same rights. In the case of MPL there's an issue if the MPL source is included and the weak copy-left kicks in and then I need to be notified. > 2) I’m for more bundling as well, but I’ve been trying to setup releases > with less bundling because of [2] where it says: "the binary/bytecode > package must have the same version number as the source release and may > only add binary/bytecode files that are the result of compiling that > version of the source code release.” That sort of implies that we aren’t > supposed to have 3rd party binaries in the binary package. I'd read that as just saying that you can't have unreleased source compiled into a binary release. Also see LEGAL jiras, for instance Open Office was given permission to add GPL 3rd party files to their binary [1] and this [2] (note the "yes" to adding it as a binary dependancy) and there's probably others. Have you investigated what other projects do? Thanks, Justin 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-72
