On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:10 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Now I'm not on your PMC, don’t know your projects history and there may be
> valid reasons for the current LICENSE and NOTICE contents so take this as
> some friendly advice, you can choose to ignore it or not act on it. Looking
> at your la
Unsubscribe
Regards
M Anbazhagan
IT Analyst
Unsubscribe
Hi,
> Yes, there's just one set, and it's really for the binary distribution.
See [1] it’s a good idea to have a different LICENSE and NOTICE for source and
binary (and lots of other projects do this).
> - License information is listed in NOTICE when it should be in LICENSE
>
> While I think I
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:47 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> See [1] it’s a good idea to have a different LICENSE and NOTICE for source
> and binary (and lots of other projects do this).
>
Agree, this just never happened after I got the initial big overhaul of the
LICENSE/NOTICE in place that got thin
Hi,
> The CDDL, CPL, MPL license lists and ALv2 headers at bottom.
>
> CDDL, CPL and MPL are Cat B (looking at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b here). The reciprocity
> requires notice, and so I would think NOTICE is the right place? The listing
> is to comply with this
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 7:34 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> NOTICE is not the right place for attribution, the license information
> usually include attribution (via the copyright line) and that info should
> go in LICENSE. It’s often thought that “attribution notice requirements”
> need to go
