Hi Fabian,
2013/3/15 Fabian Christ <christ.fab...@googlemail.com> > 2013/3/15 Sebastian Schaffert <sebastian.schaff...@gmail.com>: > > Only the BSD code licensed under the old (original) BSD license with > > advertisement clause requires such notice (see > > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html). All code we included is > > published under the New BSD license without advertisement clause, so they > > are not added to NOTICE. Is this incorrect? > > I think its correct. So are there any notices beside the default one > required at all for the source release? > I was not sure of that so I kept the pointers to the 3rd party source files bundled in the source distribution, just to be sure. But according to the licensing howto, it is probably not needed, and according to that howto the NOTICE file should be reduced to the absolute minimum that is necessary. > > > I copied this over from > > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html > > > > (Bundling Permissively Licensed Dependencies) > > > > where it says that for MIT license and for 3-clause BSD (i.e. without > > advertisement, or "New BSD") the pointer is sufficient. How did you > handle > > this in your projects? > > Was not aware of that, thanks! I always thought that you need the > original license text without any exceptions. So, in this case I think > you are fine. Cool :) > ;-) Sebastian
