Thanks for your excellent feedback Chip. On 11 December 2014 at 16:59, Chip Childers <[email protected]> wrote: > Question: Although this is a source code release, are you intending to > provide a binary distribution as a project? If so, does that > distribution include any "bits" from any software not handled by the > source release's legal documentation? I ask, only because that would > require a different set of LICENSE and NOTICE files that should probably > be reviewed as well.
Short answer: no, this release will be source-only. We'll work on a binary release for our next release. Longer answer: we recognised that we would need to make new LICENSE and NOTICE files for a binary release (and there would probably be other things we need to consider too). As our list of transitive dependencies is pretty lengthy, it's quite a lot of work to get the binary release fit for release. The source is the most important part, so for our first release we decided to concentrate on the source release only, in order to avoid it being held up by issues only affecting a binary release. For our next release we will revisit this, as we realise that many of our users will be more interested in the binary release. > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html > > The LICENSE and NOTICE files are a bit off from what's needed. When > bundling BSD and MIT licensed code, there isn't a requirement to add > anything to the NOTICE file. See "Bundling Permissively-Licensed > Dependencies" in the link above. Thanks. I've revised LICENSE and NOTICE per your suggestion; see this PR: https://github.com/apache/incubator-brooklyn/pull/390 TL;DR my revised versions can be viewed in full here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rdowner/incubator-brooklyn/revise-license-notice/LICENSE https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rdowner/incubator-brooklyn/revise-license-notice/NOTICE Do you think these changes would be satisfactory? > ZeroClipboard.{js,swf} is in NOTICE (which would be moved to LICENSE > anyway), but it still talks about the swf file. This is really minor, > but could be fixed with the other fixes from above. We have actually kept the .js file in one of the cases, so I've left that in (but removed the swf reference). > Hope this helps! Very much :-) Thanks Richard.
