You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> on 2009/05/01 21:32:21 UTC

[general] NOTICE file does not have required contents (HARMONY-6155)

Sebb commented on HARMONY-6155:
> 
> I think there are still some tweaks to be made.
> 
> There seem to be some items missing from the NOTICE file - I
> would expect this to mention most, if not all, of the 3rd party items.
> For example:
> 
> ICU4C 
> Copyright (c) 1995-2005 International Business Machines Corporation and others
> All rights reserved.

What are the criteria you are applying to determine which third-party
items are put in the NOTICE file rather than the LICENSE file?

If you take a look at the (canonical) example of httpd's NOTICE [1] and
LICENSE [2] you can see similar distinctions.

[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE?view=co
[2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE?view=co

> [BTW, do you still use both versions of ICU4C?]

No.  Why do you ask?  Are you confusing the ICU4C and ICU4J entries?

> ZLIB version 1.2.3
>  (C) 1995-2004 Jean-loup Gailly and Mark Adler
> 
> etc. 
> 
> But not Apache Yoko, and probably not necessary for the IETF RFCs

Regards,
Tim

Re: [general] NOTICE file does not have required contents (HARMONY-6155)

Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.

sebbaz@gmail.com wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> Sebb commented on HARMONY-6155:
>>> I think there are still some tweaks to be made.
>>>
>>> There seem to be some items missing from the NOTICE file - I
>>> would expect this to mention most, if not all, of the 3rd party items.
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> ICU4C Copyright (c) 1995-2005 International Business Machines
>>> Corporation and others
>>> All rights reserved.
>>
>> What are the criteria you are applying to determine which third-party
>> items are put in the NOTICE file rather than the LICENSE file?
> 
> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

That leaves plenty open to interpretation, and I'm genuinely not trying
to be awkward...

> "2. The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
> third-party notices."
> 
>> If you take a look at the (canonical) example of httpd's NOTICE [1] and
>> LICENSE [2] you can see similar distinctions.
>>
>> [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE?view=co
>> [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE?view=co
> 
> Exactly, the NOTICE file contains the attributions, the LICENSE file
> contains the licenses.

Then we have a different definition of a required attribution.

Look at the httpd LICENSE ([2] above), scroll to the bottom and you'll
see a license "For the expat parser component".

It says,
"<blah, blah>

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

<blah, blah>"

Now look at the httpd NOTICE file ([1] above).  See anything there
related to this?

> As far as I can tell, at least some of the Hrmony licenses require
> attribution.

Then either the policy needs clarifying or a number of projects need
bringing in-line with it.  From what I understand, the NOTICE includes
notices that were in our source code.

Regards,
Tim

>>> [BTW, do you still use both versions of ICU4C?]
>>
>> No.  Why do you ask?  Are you confusing the ICU4C and ICU4J entries?
> 
> Yes, sorry.
> 
>>> ZLIB version 1.2.3
>>>  (C) 1995-2004 Jean-loup Gailly and Mark Adler
>>>
>>> etc.
>>> But not Apache Yoko, and probably not necessary for the IETF RFCs
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>>
> 
>

Re: [general] NOTICE file does not have required contents (HARMONY-6155)

Posted by se...@gmail.com.

Tim Ellison wrote:
> Sebb commented on HARMONY-6155:
>> I think there are still some tweaks to be made.
>>
>> There seem to be some items missing from the NOTICE file - I
>> would expect this to mention most, if not all, of the 3rd party items.
>> For example:
>>
>> ICU4C 
>> Copyright (c) 1995-2005 International Business Machines Corporation and others
>> All rights reserved.
> 
> What are the criteria you are applying to determine which third-party
> items are put in the NOTICE file rather than the LICENSE file?

http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

"2. The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required 
third-party notices."

> If you take a look at the (canonical) example of httpd's NOTICE [1] and
> LICENSE [2] you can see similar distinctions.
> 
> [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE?view=co
> [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE?view=co

Exactly, the NOTICE file contains the attributions, the LICENSE file 
contains the licenses.

As far as I can tell, at least some of the Hrmony licenses require 
attribution.

>> [BTW, do you still use both versions of ICU4C?]
> 
> No.  Why do you ask?  Are you confusing the ICU4C and ICU4J entries?

Yes, sorry.

>> ZLIB version 1.2.3
>>  (C) 1995-2004 Jean-loup Gailly and Mark Adler
>>
>> etc. 
>>
>> But not Apache Yoko, and probably not necessary for the IETF RFCs
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
>