Re: [rules-dev] drools compliance with dependency licenses

Because several projects in Sun are evaluating Drools, it is being considered for distribution with OpenSolaris.

I'm weighing the pros and cons of building from source locally or using the distributed binaries. So, with that in mind I would like some help understanding an issue related to your binary distribution: While it is very convenient that Drools' binary distribution contains its dependencies, I'm curious how you are complying with the licenses of those dependencies, particularly those that are third-party. I see no licensing information or attribution in the tarball/zip that I downloaded (except for the ASL license). Take xpp3 for example; xpp3-min-1.1.3.4.O.jar is included in the zip I downloaded. Independently, I found this in the xpp3 source tarball (see the attachment for the complete license): 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. ... Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. Does this information appear in the binary package? I've read the wiki page on dependencies and done some greps in the source download and binary download and haven't found it...

Reid Kaufmann ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev