re: repeating "This product includes software... by Apache..." See http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
where it says "It is not necessary to duplicate the line "This product includes software developed at the Apache Software Foundation...". Does that answer your question? -Marshall On 6/7/2014 1:16 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: > 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 >
