Thanks, Alex.. John -- would it be reasonable to fix this in the next release barring any other major issues?
thanks.. Dan On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <dang...@apache.org> wrote: > >>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to >>http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps : >> >>`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the >>distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:` >> >>Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a >>separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use? >>Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out? > > AIUI, a "pointer" is the text from that web page: > > This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a > MIT license. For details, see deps/superwidget/LICENSE.txt. > > Your build/packaging should copy the dependency's MIT License into a file > in the release package. MIT-licensed projects are supposed to have their > own copy of the MIT license in their release distributions with a > project-specific copyright. The pointer isn't supposed to be a > third-party URL since URLs are not stable, although I would have probably > advised you to fix that in the next release. IMO, it isn't a major flaw > for an incubating release. > > Instead of a "pointer" you can copy whole license files into LICENSE, but > many prefer "pointers" to keep the LICENSE file shorter. > > Of course, I could be wrong... > > -Alex > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
