On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > +1 from me. > > > > Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg, > its > > preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a > > single LICENSE file, and have src and binary distro's unpack into > > different > > folders. > > > Actually I was wondering about this recommendation of having all (non ASL) > license files for dependencies in a *single* LICENSE file. It seems to me > that it's a maintenance nightmare when you have a lot of dependencies > (very > long file, you have to do a search to find anything, checking what could > be > missing takes a looong time). I'd rather have all the specific licenses > each > in there file reproduced side by side with the library the license is > applied on (with similar namings, i.e. dom4j-1.3.LICENSE) and a simple > pointer in the main LICENSE file
From: http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new "you should append their license(s) to the LICENSE file at the top of the distribution, or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the third-party license" The second part of this should meet your needs. Yes, you still have to have a pointer in the LICENSE file to each license, but you're not going to get out of that without a lengthy discussion with the ASF legal team, if then. ("licenses for each dependency library are > reproduced in the lib directory along with the library"). That's not viable. As Niclas suggested, the target of all this is lawyers. They can't be expected to dig around in the distribution to find all the relevant licenses, and a clause such as you suggest gives no definitive means of determining whether or not all the relevant licenses have in fact been discovered. -- Martin Cooper So is there a legal justification behind this that I missed? And sorry if > I'm rehashing a subject that has already been discussed in the past :) > > Matthieu > > ...ant > > > > On 7/30/07, Graham Turrell (gmail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The Woden incubator project is developing a WSDL 2.0 processor in > > > conjunction with efforts of the W3C to deliver the new WSDL > > > 2.0 specification. The Woden project team would like to ask the > > > Incubator PMC for approval to publish the Woden Milestone 7b release > to > > > support the > > > upcoming Apache WS Axis2 1.3 release. > > > > > > Could Incubator PMC members please vote by Wednesday 1st August. > > > > > > Woden M7b is an incremental release of Woden M7 which was released on > > 19th > > > February 2007. M7b adds to M7 and M7a fixes delivered by JIRAs: > > > > > > * WODEN-33 DocumentationElement should extend NestedElement. > > > * WODEN-149 Update Woden with New WSDL 2.0 Assertions Numbers for > > > Proposed > > > Recommendation. > > > * WODEN-161 Style default from interface not applied to operations. > > > * WODEN-165 SAX attribution in NOTICE file is not required. > > > * WODEN-168 OMXMLElementTest class incorrectly returning the > > > DOMXMLElementTest > > > class as its test suit. > > > > > > Also included is a fix to DOMWSDLReader to set base URI before calling > > > XmlSchema. > > > > > > The Woden M7b release files are at: > > > http://people.apache.org/~gturrell/woden/milestones/1.0M7b-incubating/ > > > > > > This build is based on revision 560591 at > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/woden/branches/M7b/ > > > > > > The results of the vote from the woden-dev list was: > > > Davanum Srinivas +1 (WSPMC, IPMC) > > > Deepal Jayasinghe +1 > > > Thilina Gunarath +1 > > > Jeremy Hughes +1 (WSPMC) > > > Graham Turrell +1 > > > John Kaputin +1 > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > Graham > > > > > >
