On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Yes, I think legally we do have to include the licenses for other
> apache jars that each subproject re-ships. In some ways it's silly,
> but remember with 1.1 of the license, the name of the subproject (Ant,
> Xerces, etc.) actually appears (or should appear) in the text of the
> license, so each subproject technically has it's own license that is
> different than every other subproject's.
Yep.
> Even if it's only that one word in section 4. of the license, they are
> different files. Lawyers seem to be really picky that way...
This is exactly the issue. Perfect summary.
Note that should folks have a very strong desire to fix this - the mailing
list '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' has been working on fixing this very issue in
versions 1.2 or 2.0 of the license. And you are welcome to scrutinize what
is done there sofar - and help asses if this fixes the issues for the
future whilst being workable.
My personal take on this is - lets do anything we can to minimize the pain
for the developers - whilst being accurate enough to ensure that the ASF
can provide those developers the most effictive and complete legal
shielding and assistance. But like in any engineering efford - there are
compromizes to be struck.
Dw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
