Interesting. Being Apache old-timers, we haven't reviewed the LICENSE/NOTICE requirements in a bit. So looks like we may need 2 separate LICENSE files for source and binary distros:
1. The source one should exclude the following licenses: CAUCHO, JGOODIES, OGNL, VPP, jEdit Syntax, Inflector (did we borrow any inflector sources?), JGraph, SLF4J, EPL. 2. Binary one should exclude EPL (I still don't believe we have any EPL dependencies; maybe the original one came from our attempts to develop an Eclipse plugin?). I don't see anything about including LICENSE/NOTICE in .jar files anymore (we do include them). Suppose a standalone jar may be considered a special kind of a "binary release". Any ideas? Andrus > On Jun 8, 2021, at 11:04 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Having a dependancy on something that EPL is 100% OK, but if it is only a > dependancy you then don’t need to list it in your LICENSE file. [1] Only > things that are in the source release artefact need to be mentioned in > LICENSE. > > Kind Regards, > Justin > > 1. https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html#guiding
