Thanks Justin and Matt, then we'll clean up the unbundled dependencies'
licenses for our source release.


On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Matt Sicker <> wrote:

> On 12 April 2018 at 22:43, Lionel Liu <> wrote:
> >
> > 2. Only things that are actually bundled in the release should be
> mentioned
> > in LICENSE. [3][4]
> >
> > To my understanding, as a source release, all the dependencies are
> bundled
> > when it is built.
> > The dependencies are not bundled in the source code, so we don't need to
> > announce any dependencies' licenses in source release?
> >
> The idea here is that the LICENSE file only needs to include licenses for
> anything that is included in that archive file. So for instance, if you
> have source files that are all developed at Apache and have dependencies
> that aren't included in the source zip, then you have the most simple
> distribution possible here. If you have source files that are licensed
> differently (e.g., copied code from an MIT licensed library), then things
> start to get complicated. As it is, your source license and notice should
> be relatively minimal right now since you're not bundling external
> dependencies in said source distribution.
> As for the JSON licensing issue, just take a look at the license. It says
> it can't be used for evil. While amusing, that's a terrible restriction to
> place on end users because it's extremely vague and violates the tenants of
> free software.
> --
> Matt Sicker <>

Reply via email to