[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For each ASF jar file distributed, we need to distribute the license/copyright and conditions from the source of that jar.Let me generalize this a bit and then state a personal recommendation - i.e., not an official statement of ASF policy, but how I would apply common sense in this situation.
e.g. for ant, we need ants LICENSE, for jelly Jelly's license.
Until ASL v2, when all the licenses become the same text, I understand that we need a license for each binary distribution of ASF code. Is this correct?
Independent of whether an artifact is source or binary, independent of whether such an artifact is ASF Licensed or not, we need to make it relatively easily apparent as to what license applies to everything.
This includes public domain, Mozilla Public License, Sun Public License jars, ... everything.
When things are organized like the maven repository on ibiblio is, I would recommend one license per directory. Ant, for example, has multiple jars but it would be clear enough to me that each were covered under the ASF license.
Even before ASF Sofware License v2, in my mind it would simplify things if we were to consolidate and standardize our licenses. However, for various reasons (impending v2, more serious license issues, desire to do some thing other than purely licensing related on occasion <grin>), this is not my personal top priority at this time.
-Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
