Hi Justin, thanks for your quick response, that helps a lot! I added some comments on your questions below.
On 2020/04/16 07:58:30, Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I’ve not checked what would be in the release, but some suggestions from a > quick glance: > - For “jqudt” just I’d just say "This project includes some sources that is > licensed under the 3 clause BSD license:” rather than saying it is not Apache > licensed. I changed the line as you suggested. > - You need to include the full text of this license not just a generic BSD > license. The full text will include a copyright line. There is now a full license text. > - For the binary you going to need a lot more license files, as again you > need to include the full text and that includes a copyright line for MIT and > BSD licenses. You may need to check other license types, > - For the binary are all these thing bundled or are they just dependancies? They are just dependencies (defined either in pom.xml or package.json) - do we need to add the full license text for every single dependency? This would result in a very large LICENSE-binary file, so currently we provide license text in the license folder and the copyright notices are present in the NOTICE-binary file. > - I’m not sure why the binary license file contains two ALv2 sections (and at > the start and one at the end) That's mainly for maintenance reasons - we wrote a small tool to extract all transitive dependencies use by the backend and UI and distinguish between dependencies used by the backend and UI in the file. I added a line to the beginning of the file to make this more clear. > - The copyright year in the binary NOTICE file should be 2020 not 2019 Thanks, I fixed that > - The binary NOTICE is likely missing stuff form other ALv2 NOTICE files it > should not just be a long list of copyrights We'll recheck and include the NOTICES from other Apache projects. > - DISCLAIMER-WIP is missing reasons why it’s included. So far, we didn't see any known issues that would need to be mentioned here - but we thought it might be better to use the WIP disclaimer than the standard disclaimer as it mentions that the (currently empty) list is likely to be incomplete - what would you suggest in this case, should we prefer to use the other disclaimer instead of the WIP? > > Thanks, > Justin > > Dominik
