How about putting one (1) README/LICENSE file with the jars that explicitly states the location of the actual licenses (the '/legal' directory). It's hard to see how anyone could have a problem with that.
(: A ;) Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >>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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
