On 5 November 2011 14:01, Scott Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5 Nov 2011, at 10:51, Ate Douma wrote: > >> On Nov 5, 2011 11:29 AM, "Scott Wilson" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> So is the omission that: >>> >>> 1. a copy of the BSD and MIT licenses must also be transcluded >>> >> >> This. AFAIK the 0.9.0 release did this already correct. > > OK just to be 100% clear... > > We need a generic copy of the BSD license text, and a generic copy of the MIT > license text? > > Just thinking these will not then include the copyright notice of the > specific code being reused. Or is that covered by the link to the original > project? >
Follow Ate's lead on this as he has been far more rigorous in his checks so we'll do it his way. > I'm happy to sort this out - I think Paul needs a break :-) Paul - it's a thankless task as anyone who has cut an early release knows. Thank you for your efforts, we are almost there. > (Also: Is the "licenses" folder in trunk obsolete?) My own preferred way of doing licence management is to have a file in the licences folder with the name of the library it applies to (e.g. "FooBar_license.txt") this means that to do an audit you just count the number of files in that directory and compare it with the number of third party libraries. NOTICE simply requires a reference to each third party library that requires an entry (not all do). However, under Ate's guidance we seem to have gone in a different direction. As I mention above, it's best to follow his lead here as he is clearly putting a great deal of effort into checking releases for us. Ross > > > > > -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
