> It seems to be a combination of a BSD license and Apache which is slightly 
> confusing. IMO nothing needs to go in NOTICE but we probably need to look 
> into it in a little more detail.

Which is what The Apache 1.1 license is (i.e. a modified BSD one) it’s been a 
while since I’ve looked at the text from ALv1.1. As far as a release goes IMO 
the LICENSE txt needs to go in (or be pointed at) in LICENSE, [1] nothing 
should be added to NOTICE [2] (as the text is included in LICENSE) and the 
headers should be left on the existing code as is.


1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
2. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices

Reply via email to