Hi all, I have attached the source only LICENSE and NOTICE files. Appreciate your feedback very much.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Isuru Haththotuwa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > -- Thanks and Regards, Isuru H.
LICENSE
Description: Binary data
NOTICE
Description: Binary data
