Hi, > The specific cases of BSD-licensed software here is FindProtobuf.cmake, which > is a build-time-only dependency and does not become part of the binary > distribution.
If there is a binary distribution why was it not voted on at the same time? Normally if something is the binary and not in the source your need a different LICENSE file for each type of release. [1][2] > Yes, that's what I thought, but in your previous vote, I understood that > you and others preferred the LICENSE.txt file to be "minimal" and include > "pointers" in cases where the license didn't _require_ the full text to be > reproduced. Legally AFAICS it meet the terms of the license. it’s just not consistent (i.e. mixing long and short forms of licenses) and may cause some confusion for anyone looking into it. > https://github.com/svn2github/valgrind/blob/master/include/valgrind.h#L4 > <https://github.com/svn2github/valgrind/blob/master/include/valgrind.h#L4> Subtle difference it says “BSD-style” (which in this context I think just means permissive). Compare the clauses in zlib and BSD and you see it’s zlib. Given they both permissive and both compatible with Apache it’s a very minor issue. Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
