On 1/1/02 9:56 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > >> Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 14:54:30 -0500 >> From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: Just the JARs >> >> "Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote: >>> Putting aside *all* the stuff we are talking about for a moement, and >>> looking at the simple notion of just having release jars available w/o docs, >>> source, etc I don't think this is a bad idea :) >>> >>> However.... >>> >>> Any license issues? Wouldn't we want to package the jar w/ a license ? >> >> This simple notion -- and my putting together a Jakarta release HOWTO -- >> is why I opened this particular thread. >> >> The license issue is well taken. I think it would be a good practice for >> us to include a license in all of our JARs. Even when we don't >> distribute them seperately ourselves, they are intended to be >> distributed seperately by our licensees. Point noted. >> > > How about including a copy of the "LICENSE" file in the META-INF > subdirectory of each JAR file produced by an Apache project? > If that is sufficient from the perspective of licensing, then that's simple enough... We'll do that for vel's next release -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting "Now what do we do?" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
