On 04/04/13 14:08, Sergio Fernández wrote:
Hi Nandana,
On 04/04/13 14:27, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya wrote:
I took a quick look at the LICENCE file and the NOTICE file that will
go to
the source distribution. It looks good ( though some of the copyright
statements might not be necessary in the NOTICE when the dependency
source
is properly annotated according to "elements such as the copyright
notifications embedded within BSD and MIT licenses need not be duplicated
in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in their original
locations." but I think we can live with it).
Yes, according
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
"Under normal circumstances, there is no need to modify NOTICE."
But I find useful to have it list them there, we could thought it away
if it'd be a problem
Looks good to me - as Nandana, slightly more than necessary but I do
agree that a single audit point is useful (and there is prior usage in
other projects).
the licnese do not have to be incuded in LICENSE, a link to the licence
is sufficient for permissive licenses, as per the text in #permissive-deps.
Andy
You will give us sometime to review the LICENCE file and the NOTICE
file of
the binary distribution too before starting the vote, right ?
Sure! This morning I was working on the installer, these are the LICENSE
and NOTICE for its distribution:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=launchers/marmotta-installer/src/main/resources/installer/LICENSE.txt;h=ba7be792c097b0252d98aedbbe6fc7e45e90f72f;hb=HEAD
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=launchers/marmotta-installer/src/main/resources/installer/NOTICE.txt;h=6bd83fe6948b7762ec653ab9a091bc0b8e7cdb00;hb=HEAD
I'd really appreciate if someone could tell me in this would be valid,
or I need to change something.
Thanks!
Cheers,
