On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:23 PM, David Jencks wrote: > I'm a little confused by the LICENSE and NOTICE in the source. I've been > telling people for years that these should apply to what is actually in the > source, however these appear to be the ones appropriate for the binary > distros. For instance they point to files in the repository folder which > only exists in the binary distro.
That can be debated. And I've seen both styles used. I'm not sure which style I prefer. Separate source and binary license files may be more accurate, but they also may be misinterpreted. I do agree that license/notice in jar files should be source licenses… In any event, the current source LICENSE file clearly indicates what applies to source and binaries. A consumer of the source should be able to easily sort out what applies/doesn't apply… So, I'm fine with it as is… --kevan
