Martin v. L=F6wis wrote: > Jack Jansen wrote: >=20 >> On the other thread: will including the copyright=20 >> notices/acknowledgements in the documentation be good enough if we=20 >> don't always ship the documentation?=20 >=20 >=20 > This is exactly my concern. It is essentially for people producing=20 > binary distributions to decide how they want this to be organized. >=20 >> Or should we put this in a special section that is always shipped,=20 >> even with binary installers that don't include documentation? >=20 >=20 > For the specific case in question, I think MAL's suggestion of adding=20 > yet another file is sufficient - maintainers of binary distributions=20 > then need to collect all those text files and distribute them. Complyin= g=20 > with the various licenses is really something that the packagers most=20 > solve for themselves - the source distribution can only prepare things=20 > in a way that makes complying simple. In a later mail I suggested adding these licenses to the standard Python license file. This should probably be done as new section explaining to which code the license applies and where the code was obtained from. Then binary distributions would only have to include this one file (which they have to include anyway, since the Python license requires this). --=20 Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH _______________________________________________________________________ eGenix.com -- Makers of the Python mx Extensions: mxDateTime,mxODBC,... Python Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4