Package "objenesis" in Fedora contains two files with following license
* COPYRIGHT & LICENSE
* This code is Copyright (c) 2006 BEA Systems, inc. It is provided
free, as-is and without any warranties for the purpose of
* inclusion in Objenesis or any other open source project with a FSF
approved license, as long as this notice is not
* removed. There are no limitations on modifying or repackaging the
code apart from this.
* BEA does not guarantee that the code works, and provides no support
for it. Use at your own risk.
* Originally developed by Leonardo Mesquita. Copyright notice added by
Henrik St\u00E0hl, BEA JRockit Product Manager.
Does this mean that these files are licensed under ASL 2.0 as the rest
of the objenesis project? 
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 04:38:16PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> > 2: When a package has a list of authors separate from the license file,
> > should that list also be tagged as a license file, or is it considered
> > regular documentation? It seems to me that *who* gives out a license is
> > important information that belongs together with the license.
> With a big "I'm not Fedora Legal" disclaimer, I think the answer here
> is really... it depends.
> The intent here is primarily to make it possible to exclude bulky
> documentation for containers and other space-constrained installations
> while keeping legally-required license statements in place. Authorship
> files may or may not be part of that.
Then I suppose I should ask Fedora Legal, so I'm CCing the legal list.
If it were a legal requirement, then I suppose it would also apply when
the author's name is written in a README file together with a lot of
I don't remember seeing any explicit requirement to include a separate
file with a list of authors. It just feels weird to have a license
without a licensor. There are some licenses that contain phrases like
"the above copyright notice", but in those cases it's in the same file.