> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > > > Theodore W. Leung wrote: > > > > > > As I recall, Dirk was the one who suggested licenses next to the jar > > > files -- this is what all the other XML projects are doing. > > > > > > FOP did not resolve their license issue with Jimi -- they > decided to put > > > a "go here and download Jimi from Sun" readme file in. > > > > > > Also, you guys still have an issue with Jisp, because the license only > > > covers source distribution, not binary -- kind of like djb's Qmail > > > license. > > > > > > > So we have to give up our new installed, clean solution with a separate > > legal directory and follow the other projects by putting the licenses > > next to the jars. > > No, wait a second. Is this official? > Yes, this is the question! How can answer us this one, then?
> I mean, is there any document that *explicitly* indicates where the > licenses should be? > > If not, I would propose to have /legal as a repository of licenses to > keep things clean in the entire xml.apache CVS. > > No, it's not to be picky, but to keep things well ordered. Yepp, I like the /legal directory, too. But I think we should have *one* solution for the next release. Currently we use a mixture of both. So an official answer would really be appreciated. Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
