My understanding - via Dirk is that according to US law, a file without a license is undistributable, and that includes our own jars, unfortunately.
Dirk, can you expand on this if I haven't got it right? Ted On Tue, 2002-02-05 at 00:42, Vincent Hardy wrote: > 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]
