On 2/5/2013 8:06 AM, Peter Klügl wrote: > On 05.02.2013 00:08, Marshall Schor wrote: >> <snip> >> Let me know what you think. > > The files look fine. > > I must admit that I do not fully understand your proposal. > > So, I put uima-eclipse-user-agreement.html in the root of the feature and > uima-eclipse-user-agreement.txt in the properties. +1. > The LICENSE in META-INF just covers the feature.jar and, therefore, contains > only the ASL stuff. The plugins contain LICENSE files with the other licenses > like CPL. +1. > > Is that enough? Plugin Jars need NOTICE files if there are any notices that go with the Licenses. > Do we need to mention the other licenses in the click-through license (first > line)? Surprisingly, no. The Eclipse way is to require the user to crawl through the plugin Jars looking in all the directories, for LICENSE, NOTICE, and ABOUT files.
> Do we need to provide link to the other licenses in the user agreement? Grey area - I think not, unless there is a requirement for "prominent" display. There is such a requirement for Category "B" licenses, and I think you have one of these (the CPL ?) - but that's already listed. -Marshall > > Peter > > PS: I thought the plain-text license is the click-though license and not the > html version. They're both the click-through - they're identical except for html formatting. The one shown by the P2 installer is typically the .txt; perhaps there's some way to make it show the .html :-)
