So I found it: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
Please take a look at http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses [1]
If this document is not normative, please let me know. Granted, it says "should" and not "must", so if there is a discussion presumably it's about whether "should" means "must".
Otherwise, let's shut this discussion down and start following the rules.
Craig[1] If An Artifact Contains Code Under Several Licenses, Should It Contain Several License Files?
No - all license information should be contained in the LICENSE file.When an artifact contains code under several licenses, the LICENSE file should contain details of all these licenses. For each component which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and the license under which the component is distributed should be appended to the LICENSE file.
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE is an example.
On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:11 PM, sebb wrote:
On 18/08/2009, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:times, I thought the consensus was to put *all* licenses into the top level LICENSE file. But having just scoured the official public pages promulgatingHi Ant, I didn't intend to make up stuff on the fly, especially policy.After having been through the fine points of LICENSE vs. NOTICE so manypolicy, I can't find it.distributions because users might not find them and thereby not know whatLet's continue the discussion.I still believe that it's bad form to put licenses in several places inthey're getting.You may consider it bad form, but until it is actually documented asincubator or ASF policy I wouldn't consider it to be enough to block a release. Especially since I am quite sure there will be a debate aboutwhether it must be one way or the other.Surely we should be making things easy for the end-users of the software?AIUI ASF policy is for there to be "no surprises". Having a single starting point - the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the top-level directory - seems to me to be the way to do this. It's really unfair to expect end-users to trawl around the directory structure looking for license files, whose names are non-standard. It's really not very much to ask; and it only has to be done once for each 3rd party library. Yes it's tedious to get things set up initially, but the benefit of such standardisation is to make it much easier for the end-user, which is surely what we should be aiming for.Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
