Hi Chip, On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Chip Childers <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:31:01PM +0530, Isuru Haththotuwa wrote: > > 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. > > Source only means only source code from the git repo tar'ed up and > signed. The reason that I asked about the source license, was that > David mentioned earlier in the thread that he found a "edit_area" > javascript file. That's an example of a source code file that isn't > produced by the Apache Stratos project, but will be included in the > release. > > Binary release artifacts, in whatever form, need to then add to the > accurate source legal documents, providing legal details for all > artifacts included in that distribution. > > Make sense? > Yes, thank you for the detailed explanation. Our source has a very few third party includes as most of the third party libraries come as dependencies (jars). We are in the process of preparing and updating the relevant license and notice files as you suggested and will be sharing the them in the dev list for feedback asap. -- Thanks and Regards, Isuru H.
