Le 21/05/15 00:21, Paul King a écrit : > On 20/05/2015 5:36 AM, Cédric Champeau wrote: >> I wanted to check with you what is preventing us from releasing >> 2.4.4. [...] > > I have a question for our mentors around licensing. Just a point of > clarification > for the official source distribution zip. We have a number of > dependencies > which our build brings in and we have incorporated the appropriate > license > information from those dependencies into our LICENSE and NOTICE files. > I believe this is exactly appropriate for the binary artifacts (jars) our > build produces and for the convenience binaries we will make available > (since > those artifacts contain software in binary form from the respective > dependency > projects). This complies with the wording in those licenses similar to: > > "... Redistribution and use in source and binary forms ... are permitted > provided that the following conditions are met: > * Redistributions of source code must retain the [various license > information] > * Redistributions in binary form must retain the [various license > information]" > > In our case it is the binary form that is relevant. All good so far. > > The point of clarification is about the source distribution zip itself. > Take ASM or ANTLR as an example. There is no source or binary artifacts > from those projects anywhere in our source zip. The build brings down the > needed binaries at build time which we subsequently bundle into our > produced binary artifacts. So, back to the wording above, there is > definitely no "redistribution" of source or binary but the fact that our > build goes on to incorporate said dependencies, does that count as "use"? > > So, should the ASM/ANTLR etc. license info appear in the LICENSE/NOTICE > files in the root of our source distribution zip? We currently do include > them but I am conscious of the need to keep those files containing just > the required information and no more.
AFAIK, antlr produces Java code that requires a antlr bundle to run : in this case, you 'use' antlr. In other words, if the tool you use generates some Java code (or anything else) that is not using any part of the tool, then I don't think you need to retain the license.
