On 06.06.2014, at 17:45, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: > license / notice check OK - also did a spot check of some JARs. I found the > Spring JARs (which are bundled in the binary distribution) have License and > Notice items which refer to "asm", but also say these may not apply. I didn't > see "asm" included, so I assume these, indeed do not apply, and don't need to > be > mentioned in the bin distribution. If this isn't correct, it needs fixing...
The Spring people have apparently repackaged ASM 2.2.3 into the spring-asm-3.1.2.RELEASE.jar under their own package namespace, probably in order to avoid conflicts with other instances of ASM on the classpath. So I gather this portion of the LICENSE file applies. The very last section mentions how to obtain sources of the Spring Framework from VMWware. I believe this section should also remain. So after all, I think nothing should be removed from the LICENSE file. In the NOTICE file, I have various sections, one per dependency. If two dependencies have exactly the same NOTICE text except the dependency name, I conflated them. Yet many repetitions of the following phrase remain: > This product includes software developed by > The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). Should these be removed and mentioned only the first time? I think probably not, because there are also dependencies that to which this phrase does not apply. Any opinions? When this is resolved, I can post rc3. -- Richard
