Hello, Following Dirk's email on third-party jars we have addressed the license issues in Batik on third-party jars (which was the point of the email), not on jars coming from Apache code. Note that this only required moving and renaming the license that we already included for the only real 3rd party jar we have.
This is why we have not added license/readme for crimson, ant and jaxp which come from Apache and we did not consider as 3rd party (we think of the various Apache projects as being part of the same family, not third party). About jaxp, the commiter who added it to the Batik repository pointed that the source code was available under the Apache license in xml-commons so an additional license seemed superfluous: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/parsers/ may be Edwin could tell us if we got the wrong impression. It is not a big deal to add a license for Apache jars, but I would like to understand why it is needed, as these are not third party jars. If the point is to document every single jar so that we are extremely clear as to where the jars come from, then that sounds like a good idea: it is better to communicate a little too much than too little. Thanks for clarifying why we need the license on Apache jars. Cheers, Vincent Hardy. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
