Hi,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Thilo Goetz <twgo...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> The LICENSE/NOTICE point that Thilo brought up is a valid one, though
>> especially when the default build embeds external dependencies to the
>> build target, it's quite OK to include also their licenses in the
>> licensing metadata even if those dependencies strictly speaking aren't
>> being shipped as a part of the source distribution.
>
> You think so? Even with all the "nothing goes into a NOTICE
> file unless it has to" hubbub? We don't want to create a new
> maven flame war when we take this release to the IPMC :-)
Yes. The recent PDFBox release used this same approach, and I commented [1]:
"The LICENSE and NOTICE files included in META-INF of the
pre-compiled jar cover also external dependencies, which is not
necessary in that context. There's also been some recent Apache
legal discussion (see LEGAL-62) about NOTICE file contents, and
it seems that my earlier understanding resulted in us including too
many details in NOTICE. Neither of these issues is too serious
and certainly not a blocker for the release."
In UIMA the case of using the same LICENSE and NOTICE files for source
and binary distributions is even stronger especially for builds that
by default produce a PEAR package that includes the external
dependencies. Your point about potential confusion caused by different
licensing metadata for the source and binary distributions is also a
valid argument for not having two sets of those files.
[1] http://markmail.org/message/2w742diumw7hooan
BR,
Jukka Zitting
