Hi Till, There are several discussions about LICENSE for dependencies happening at the same time so I would like to make sure we merge them into a decision in dev@ list.
Is this related to PR https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/830 for updating LICENSE and NOTCE of Flink dependencies? - Henry On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 >> > >>
