= problem =
It seems that some licensing information is missing in the repository and in distributions.

= analysis and enhancement recommendation =

I have suggestions related to the trunk/docs/licenses directory and to license files in general.

== 1. I suggest to include the following files from trunk/docs/licenses into the binary distribution: ==

• I suggest to include the file bsd_jline.txt in the binary distribution.

Motivation:

The bsd_jline.txt file inludes the following statement:

"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."

The lib directory in the binary distribution includes the jline.jar file. I think therefore that including the appropriate license file is necessary.

• I suggest to include the files mit_jquery.txt, mit_sizzle.txt and mit_tools.tooltip.txt in the binary distribution.

Motivation:

Those files include the following statement:

"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

jQuery, sizzle and mit_tools.tooltip are inluded in the file scala-compiler-src.jar in the binary distribution. I think therefore that including the appropriate license files is necessary.

• I suggest to include the files mit_jquery.txt, mit_sizzle.txt and mit_tools.tooltip.txt in the devel-docs binary distribution as well. The motication is similar to what is stated above. The devel-docs distribution includes jQuery, sizzle and mit_tools.tooltip.

== 2. I suggest to include the content of the ant LICENSE-2.0.txt file into the trunk/docs/licenses/apache_ant.txt file. ==

Alternatively I suggest that it might be included separately and renamed to something like apache_ant-LICESNSE-2.0.txt for example. The file apache_ant.txt might then include a line indicating that the rest of the license is the file apache_ant-LICESNSE-2.0.txt.

Motivation:

The apache_ant.txt includes the following statement:

"Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License."

The apache license on the other hand states the following:

•   You must give any other recipients of the Work or
  

•   Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
  

Currently the apache_ant.txt only provide the link to http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.

Moreover, I do not know which version of ant is included with scala but ant versions have more license notices that just related to the apache license only. For example ant 1.8.2 there are additional notices in the license file: W3C� SOFTWARE NOTICE AND LICENSE, SAX license information

Because of the above, I think that a copy of the license should be given. Just providing the link is not enough in my opinion.

3. I suggest to include the content of the apache android examples LICENSE-2.0.txt file into the trunk/docs/licenses /apache_android.txt file or to provide it separatly - in a way similar to the apache ant license.

Motivation is similar to what is described above about the apache ant license.

4. If pieces of ant software or android examples are provided also with the binary distribution, than it may be needed to inlcude also the appropriate license files in the binary distribution, not only in the source distribution.

5. It may also be appropriate to include a remark in the README file or in the main LICENSE file or in a separate COPYING file (like in JRuby example below) pointing to the other license files.

6. I noticed than when I tried to compile scala I needed ant-contrib. I noticed an ant-contrib.jar file included in the lib/ant directory. However I did not notice any license file related to it. I downloaded ant-contrib myself and it had a license file. I think it probably ought to be included as well in the docs/licenses directory.

7. Please note that I am not a lawyer and I do not have a very deep knowledge about the scala source and binary distributions either - I may not be aware of which pieces of third party software are used in which parts of the scala project. It might be therefore a good idea for someone with the appriopriate knowledge to review the above comments and see also if any other license files are missing.

= Additional information =

Here is what I noticed in other language distributions regarding how they deal with the licensing issue.

Groovy (1.7.0) binary distribution includes several license files in the main directory (LICENSE.txt, ASM-LICENSE.txt, CLI-LICENSE.txt and others).

JRuby (1.4.0) COPYING file includes the following statement:
"Some additional libraries distributed with JRuby are not covered by
JRuby's licence. See the licence files for the respective libraries in
the 'lib' directory for more information and also LICENSE.RUBY for most
files found in src/lib/ruby/1.8."

Clojure 1.2.0 binary distribution includes a readme file with the information that it uses ASM and with the appropriate license/notice.