On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 03:01:02PM +0000, Richard Downer wrote: > 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.
Makes perfect sense to me... > > > 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? > They look good to me. While I think you could probably push forward to try and get a release voted in without these changes, how the notice file is used incorrectly will certainly come up within [email protected]. My suggestion would be to merge the PR from above, and then re-spin the RC (new VOTE). > > 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). > Got it. > > Hope this helps! > > Very much :-) Great. > > Thanks > Richard.
