This only refers to source files, i.e. the W3C-licensed sources and any other source files that may not be ASF-licensed. For external, pre-compiled dependencies (JAR files) Batik is fine with the current scheme of stating the licenses.
Concerning xml-apis-ext.jar, please keep in mind that I was only able to move them into a branch that has never been touched by anyone else than me. Without the backing of you Batik guys I lost the motivation to actively pursue this any further. The first thing that would have to be done is to go to the XML Commons mailing list and sort out the problem with the branch. I cannot be that those sources are just deposited in that branch for ever, without being accepted by the other "clients" of xml-apis.jar" and without a release of XML Commons including the xml-apis-ext.jar. If this cannot be done properly there, you'll have to keep the sources in Batik but I'd strongly suggest that you separate them from the main source tree if only to stress the point that those sources are not ALv2 licensed. Generally, I'd update the README file a little to do the same as I've done in FOP: stating where exactly all the information about licensing can be found. ATM, you're only mentioning the LICENSE file in there. I've also written a README.txt in the lib directory which lists all dependencies. That will make it easier for users to determine which license overall apply to a project using Apache Batik. On 17.11.2006 04:33:16 Cameron McCormack wrote: > Hi all. > > The new release rules[1] say: > > If A Distribution Contains Code Under Several Licenses, Should It > Contain Several License Files? > > No - all license information should be contained in the LICENSE > file. > > When a distribution 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. > > but does this also apply to bundled binaries (like Batiks lib/js.jar), > or just included source files (like sources/org/w3c/dom/svg/SVGRect.java > although Im going to move across to using the xml-apis-ext.jar from > XML Commons for these files)? So, should all of Batiks lib/LICENSE.* > and lib/build/LICENSE.* contents be moved into the one LICENSE file? > > Thanks, > > Cameron > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
