Hi Chip, On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Chip Childers <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:06:37PM +0530, Isuru Haththotuwa wrote: > > Hi Chip, > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Chip Childers <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:06:55AM +0530, Isuru Haththotuwa wrote: > > > > Hi Devs and Mentors, > > > > > > > > I'm attaching draft versions of LICENSE and NOTICE files here for > > > feedback. > > > > Please note that all the required licenses and notices are not > included > > > > since the work is still on-going. The intention is to get feedback > on the > > > > format of the LICENSE and NOTICE files. > > > > > > The first thing that stands out to me is that the LICENSE file seems to > > > be including license information for jar files. Is that the intended > > > use of this content? > > > > > > > Yes, this is in line with the guidelines given at [1]. We have listed the > > licenses of other jars which have licenses compatible with ALv2. Also > note > > Suresh's reply to the thread. > > > > [1]. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html > > Is there a source-only version that you've started? That's probably the > one for everyone to review initially. Once that's good, then a second > version of each file can be created that adds in any dependencies that > are distributed with the binary. > When you say a source only version, do you mean like there are no third party dependencies which are bundled? In this case only ALv2 license text would be there on the license file as I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong. Since this case is obvious, I did not create such a license file for reviewing purposes. -- Thanks and Regards, Isuru H.
