Irene Huang wrote: > if you are OK with the license indicated in the copyright file, please > let me know and I would like to close this case as approved.
That seems like a strange place, because the people who need this information are the developers who are deciding whether to use the library and they typically won't see the package's 'copyright' legal notice. But if this is the procedure we've adopted for reporting licensing information then that's good enough for me. Mike. -- mike.oliver at sun.com > Irene Huang wrote: >> Generally, we don't include license information in the manpage. For >> Opensolaris project, we ship a copyright file in each package, I think >> that will do. >> --Irene >> On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 10:10 +0800, Jeff Cai wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 16:24 -0700, Mike Oliver wrote: >>> >>>> Irene Huang wrote: >>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>> 4.2. Interfaces: >>>>>> Exported Interfaces >>>>>> Interface Classification >>>>>> Comments >>>>>> --------------- -------------- >>>>>> ----------------------- >>>>>> ... >>>>>> /usr/lib/libtasn1.so Volatile >>>>>> Shared library >>>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>> Why is this library not versioned in the usual manner? (E.g. >>>> libtasn1.so.1, accompanied by a .so symlink pointing to the >>>> "current" version for use by the normal linker environment.) >>>> >>> Sorry, this is my mistake. >>> >>> /usr/lib/libtasn1.so Volatile Symbolic link >>> /usr/lib/libtasn1.so.3 Volatile Symbolic link >>> /usr/lib/libtasn1.so.3.0.15 Volatile Shared library >>> >>> Spec will be changed accordingly. >>> >>> >>>> I don't know whether there's a SAC Best Practice for bringing >>>> the license terms of libraries to the notice of developers who >>>> might wish to use those libraries. AFAICT this one is LGPL; >>>> does that need to be mentioned anywhere? >>>> >>> I'll mention that in libtasn1 man page. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> >>>> Mike. >>>> >> >> >
