Hi,
> Interesting. Being Apache old-timers, we haven't reviewed the LICENSE/NOTICE
> requirements in a bit. So looks like we may need 2 separate LICENSE files for
> source and binary distros
That is how a lot of projects handle it yes.
> I don't see anything about including LICENSE/NOTICE in
Hi,
Having a dependancy on something that EPL is 100% OK, but if it is only a
dependancy you then don’t need to list it in your LICENSE file. [1] Only things
that are in the source release artefact need to be mentioned in LICENSE.
Kind Regards,
Justin
1.
Hi,
I'm not part of your PMC, and there may be a reason(s) for this that I'm
unaware of, but I noticed a couple of unusual things in your release:
1. The LICENSE includes the Eclipse Public License. The EPL license is Category
B and in general you can't include anything that licensed Category B
