On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <dang...@apache.org> wrote:
>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to >http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps : > >`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the >distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:` > >Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a >separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use? >Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out? AIUI, a "pointer" is the text from that web page: This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a MIT license. For details, see deps/superwidget/LICENSE.txt. Your build/packaging should copy the dependency's MIT License into a file in the release package. MIT-licensed projects are supposed to have their own copy of the MIT license in their release distributions with a project-specific copyright. The pointer isn't supposed to be a third-party URL since URLs are not stable, although I would have probably advised you to fix that in the next release. IMO, it isn't a major flaw for an incubating release. Instead of a "pointer" you can copy whole license files into LICENSE, but many prefer "pointers" to keep the LICENSE file shorter. Of course, I could be wrong... -Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
