Re: Licensing requirement for binary artifacts without transitive deps

2016-09-21 Thread Donald Szeto
Hi, Thanks everyone for the input, especially Stian for taking a thorough look! On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > it's quite a long list.. obviously you should fix your own metadata so > predictionio does not become one of the "unknown licenses". :) > Sure will do.

Re: Licensing requirement for binary artifacts without transitive deps

2016-09-21 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
You are right that if you are not redistributing third-party dependencies yourself (e.g. part of source code or embedded within ZIP/JAR files) - then you should not be propagating their NOTICE/LICENSE details. However you still need to check that the dependencies your code relies on is acceptable

Re: Licensing requirement for binary artifacts without transitive deps

2016-09-20 Thread Christopher
As I understand things, the licensing information you provide in your artifacts should reflect everything contained within that artifact. You do not need to provide license/notice information for dependencies which are not bundled in your artifact. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:01 PM Donald Szeto wro

Re: Licensing requirement for binary artifacts without transitive deps

2016-09-20 Thread Alex Harui
On 9/20/16, 11:50 AM, "Donald Szeto" wrote: >Hi all, > >I am preparing my first Apache release and am wondering if I need to check >licenses of all transitive deps if the release contains: > >- a single source tarball; >- a few binary JAR artifacts on Nexus that contain no transitive deps in >e

Re: Licensing requirement for binary artifacts without transitive deps

2016-09-20 Thread Donald Szeto
Sorry. I should have mentioned that I am preparing a release for PredictionIO. Regards, Donald On Tuesday, September 20, 2016, Donald Szeto wrote: > Hi all, > > I am preparing my first Apache release and am wondering if I need to check > licenses of all transitive deps if the release contains: