> Karl Pauls wrote: > > Stuart, > > > > it looks to me like we have a dependency on stuff from plexus which is > > under MIT. This should be in the NOTICE no? Not a showstopper IMO but > > anyways... Somebody else already mentioned that the copyright date in > > the NOTICE needs updating too. > > > As far as I understand this (and there is a recent thread on legal about > this as well), we only have to mention stuff in the notice file if it > gets distributed in the release *directly*. So as long as the > corresponding jar files are not included in the archive, they don't have > to be mentioned in the notice.
Well, I for one would like to have us mentioning direct dependencies. I can see that maybe from a legal point of view that is not strictly required but I think it is only fair to do so and due diligence as well. > However, these things *can* be mentioned for convenience. Exactly. That's why I said it's not a showstopper... regards, Karl > Carsten > > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Karl Pauls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
