Hi Till, That's correct, It is not necessary to include Apache 2.0-licensed projects in the LICENSE file, unless they contain non-Apache 2.0-licensed code. We should definitely remove those entries from the LICENSE file.
Best, Max On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: > If it is not against the Apache Guidelines I would vote for removing them. > I'm always in favour of keeping things simple. > > On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 at 18:34 Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > I just updated our LICENSE of the binary distribution and noticed that we > > also list dependencies which are licensed under Apache-2.0. As far as I > > understand the ASF guidelines [1], this is not strictly necessary. Since > it > > is a lot of work to keep the list up to date, I was wondering whether we > > want to remove Apache-2.0 dependencies from this list or not. I would be > in > > favour of this if it does not contradict an ASF policy which I miss. > > > > This might even have another advantage. Currently, we're shading in many > > modules the Guava and ASM dependency away. Thus their binary data is > > contained in nearly every jar we publish on maven. If we wanted to be > > consistent with our license policy then we would have to add in each of > > these jars a LICENSE/NOTICE file which lists these two dependencies, IMO. > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice > > >
