On 9/19/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > > On 9/17/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip> > >> Should we add a NOTICE reference for this?? > > > > yes > > > > also, their license details need to be added into the LICENSE file > > I'm adding the (src\test....) link to our NOTICE after the already > existing sentence: > --- NOTICE > SPF Test (test*.txt) contains resources derived from the > libspf2 library (http://www.libspf2.org/) and distributed under > the BSD license and copyright by Wayne Schlitt, Shevek. > (src\test\resources\org\apache\james\jspf\libspf2.LICENSES) > ------ > And add the libspf2.LICENSES file to that folder. > > I saw that the latest maven plugin for managing LICENSE/NOTICE > generation adds 3rd party LICENSING references to the NOTICE file and > not to the LICENSE file. > > I remember that Cliff told us to put the whole 3rd party LICENSEs or an > url to the LICENSEs or a local reference to the LICENSE file at the > bottom of our LICENSE file (as you tell now). > > Some months ago I wrote to the maven-dev list to ask why they added the > 3rd party licenses reference to the "wrong" file and they replied that > they double checked this with Cliff and it was ok. ok is not the same thing as right :-) LICENSE should really be used for licenses and NOTICE for notices AIUI the goal is to ensure that downstream folks understand the legal properties of the files they've downloaded. this goal is satisfied even if NOTICE contains license information so it's ok to ship. > Are we ok with that licensing info being in the NOTICE file or should I > revamp this discussion on the maven list, too? not sure that'd be worth your time if it matters then one day, it'll all be written up - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
