On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I prefer to put our license in the file and then, at the bottom, refer >> to a list of other licenses per dependency (if included in this package), >> wherein the dependency licenses are in separate files near the dependency. > > However, this does not agree with the following [1]: > >>>> > ... > When an artifact contains code under several licenses, the LICENSE > file should contain details of all these licenses. For each component > which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and the license > under which the component is distributed should be appended to the > LICENSE file. > <<< > > [1] > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses It is also at odds with the Apache HTTPD LICENSE file we've been treating as a canonical sample. The documentation on www.apache.org/dev may have been contaminated by well-meaning volunteers and changed from Roy's original meaning, but I assume that the HTTPD LICENSE and NOTICE files haven't gotten away from him and are still 100% consonant with both the letter and the intent of the ALv2. While Roy's suggestion of referencing licenses spread over multiple files seems like a perfectly sane alternative, I'd argue against documenting it as best practice unless HTTPD changes their LICENSE file to match. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
