On 03/10/2008, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:23 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > > > > though i do think for the next release all those separate licenses in the > > > top level folder should be merged into the single LICENSE and NOTICE > > files. > > > > And this is where I disagree strongly. Licenses for 3rd party > > libraries should be separate from licenses covering the source code. > > It is not like these licenses are not easy to find, nor easy to > > overlook. In fact: putting them all in one file makes it impossible to > > ascertain which license covers which product. A 64 page license file > > is never read. > > > > Martijn > > > > > Sure, and we seem to be accepting either approach as ok these days in the > poddling reviews, though if lots of separate files are being used i think > its probably better to put them somewhere other than the top level folder.
Wherever the additional license files are placed, they need to be referenced from the main LICENSE file. > What i was hinting at in the previous email is that the copyright statements > are also in the seperate license files and I think they should be really be > copied to or at least pointed to from the top NOTICE file. AFAIK, all attributions MUST be in the single NOTICE file. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html > ...ant > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
