On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:10 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
Nick, > In general, the LICENSE and NOTICE refers to the contents of the release > itself. If you're not bundling any of those outside dependencies, then > there would be nothing to include. Okay, sounds good, thank you. > Please also note - you can provide a binary release, assuming that the > binary release does not package the outside dependencies and that its clear > that it brings in those other dependencies. I think that's problematic in this case - Guacamole builds with Maven, and, the way it's configured across the project, it goes out and pulls in all of the dependencies (binaries in JAR format) and creates a single JAR file that can then be copied to the extensions folder and used to extend the main Guacamole client. So, the resulting binary file isn't just the source from the Guacamole project, it's also any binary dependencies necessary to run it. I'll discuss with the other folks in the project, but I believe the thought at this point is that it's probably simpler to provide folks with the instructions for building/packaging themselves than to try to build without the dependencies and then have the user load those files into certain locations for the extension in question. Thank you very much for the guidance! Regards,Nick On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:26 AM Nick Couchman <nick.couch...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Hello, everyone,I'm currently working on the Guacamole incubator project, > and am developing an extension for the project that has dependencies on > binaries (JARs via Maven) that are licensed under Category-X licenses. > We've already determined that we cannot distribute a binary version of this > extension, but, since it is an extension (and not core to the functionality > of the product), we should be able to distribute the source code with build > instructions for the users. > The question I have is how we should deal with license bundling in this > scenario? In the rest of this project, including other extensions, we > bundle a src/licenses directory that has all of the dependency licenses for > the extension. When the binary is built, a resulting file has not only the > binary for the extension, but also all of the dependency licenses. Since > we're not distributing a binary, is there any reason/need for us to package > up dependency licenses? > Let me know if this needs more clarification - I know this might be a bit > vague, but I'm in new territory, here, and am happy to provide any further > information that might help someone help me :-). > Thanks,Nick
