On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 7:34 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > NOTICE is not the right place for attribution, the license information > usually include attribution (via the copyright line) and that info should > go in LICENSE. It’s often thought that “attribution notice requirements” > need to go in NOTICE but they don’t. If you carefully read [1] you see that > if it already covered by LICENSE there’s no need to add it NOTICE. > Good pointer, it does suggest LICENSE for Cat B notices. In my overhaul I'll just move the lists to LICENSE. > Dependancy are not listed in LICENSE / NOTICE only things that are > actually bundled. > Here, it is the compile/runtime dependencies that are the very things that are bundled, in the assembly in the binary release. That' what drives almost all of the license issue here. This is why I start with this list of transitive dependencies as it will be exactly what's bundled. There is no good reason JUnit should be in that list, but can be if some project did accidentally mark it non-test scope. Right now I do not see it, so either it's no longer needed or was an error in the first place. It'll go away.
