Hello Calvin, > Yes, but that's something you have to do when releasing binary versions. > I'm not sure if providing a link to indicate the license source in the > LICENSE file would be acceptable. For example, with the MIT License: "The > above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all > copies or substantial portions of the Software." I don't think providing > just a link would work, but perhaps you could check with the ASF legal > team.
I silenced my brain and created additional directories (licenses-binary, notices-binary). I manually fetched all the license and notice files for the dependencies declared in the managed dependencies section of our pom.xml file (the Maven License Plugin is rarely able to download the actual licenses). https://github.com/apache/incubator-baremaps/pull/905/commits/f86ca06dbc57bccf29134482cb3fc57b72575a42#diff-cca02cc6d280041610f60091acaf62720f8db3242e3e82dcfb682ef1ce57ce0c Please, let me know if this is sufficient. > Not all practices of top-level projects are necessarily correct. I haven't > kept up with Sedona, but I raised this issue with Drill last year[2]. > > [1]https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html#binary > [2]https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/DRILL/issues/DRILL-8475 I’m quite sympathetic to the projects that succeed with a simpler approach, and I think I understand why they try to avoid going down this rabbit hole… ;-) Best, Bertil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
