You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> on 2015/08/03 10:59:18 UTC
Re: git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - Update LICENSE and NOTICE to reflect information about Google Closure Library
Hi,
As the GCL (incorrectly) doesn’t have a NOTICE file there’s no need to add it to NOTICE [1] and as it Apache licensed there no need to add it to LICENSE [1].
However probably best in this case is to assume it had a generic NOTICE and just add something like this:
"This software contains code from the Google Closure Library, copyright Google XXXX”
My reasoning is that all of the bundled code, while Apache licensed, is not copyright the ASF and nor was it developed at Apache and it would be a bit cheeky to imply (by omission) that it was. Sadly the documentation at the licensing how to is a little unclear on how to add non ASF Apache licensed software, particularly when they are missing a NOTICE file.
Current versions of LICENSE/ NOTICE are probably not a release blockers, as having a little much info is more a documentation issue than an licensing error. Although it is best to try and keep NOTICE contents to a minimum.
Are any of the GCL MIT/BSD licensed bits included / bundled? Is so they will need need to be mentioned in LICENSE [2]
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
Re: git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - Update LICENSE and
NOTICE to reflect information about Google Closure Library
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> You could just do a "ant release" in the flex-asjs repo. That is your
> release candidate :-)
I tried but it failed, the requirements (as per the READme) include setting up about 10 things (Flex, Falcon, FalconJX etc etc).
Thanks,
Justin
Re: git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - Update LICENSE and
NOTICE to reflect information about Google Closure Library
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Can you please make the changes and we can then review it again?
>
> I would need a release candidate in order to review it - as you need to
> know what’s being bundled.
>
You could just do a "ant release" in the flex-asjs repo. That is your
release candidate :-)
>
> Re GCL being in LICENSE/NOTICE currently what you have goes beyond what is
> legally required so it not a blocking issue if it doesn’t change.
>
Ah okay. So, if there are no other objections, I prefer we leave it at
this.
Thanks,
Om
Re: git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - Update LICENSE and
NOTICE to reflect information about Google Closure Library
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> Can you please make the changes and we can then review it again?
I would need a release candidate in order to review it - as you need to know what’s being bundled.
Re GCL being in LICENSE/NOTICE currently what you have goes beyond what is legally required so it not a blocking issue if it doesn’t change.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - Update LICENSE and
NOTICE to reflect information about Google Closure Library
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
Justin,
Can you please make the changes and we can then review it again? It would
be easier that way.
Thanks,
Om
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > It is always hard to know what the “right” thing to do is, but note that
> > in [3], sebb recommends listing non-ASF AL2.0 dependencies in LICENSE.
>
> Which probably doesn’t apply here as it’s a different situation i.e. in
> that case the font in question is a binary file whose license wasn’t
> obvious as you need to look at the font meta data in order to determine
> that.
>
> > Well, that is reasonable reasoning, however, our last advice on this
> topic
> > is here at [4] which would imply no change to NOTICE.
>
> Again this applies to bundling a binary font file which is different to
> bundling several source files with Apache headers.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - Update LICENSE and
NOTICE to reflect information about Google Closure Library
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> It is always hard to know what the “right” thing to do is, but note that
> in [3], sebb recommends listing non-ASF AL2.0 dependencies in LICENSE.
Which probably doesn’t apply here as it’s a different situation i.e. in that case the font in question is a binary file whose license wasn’t obvious as you need to look at the font meta data in order to determine that.
> Well, that is reasonable reasoning, however, our last advice on this topic
> is here at [4] which would imply no change to NOTICE.
Again this applies to bundling a binary font file which is different to bundling several source files with Apache headers.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - Update LICENSE and
NOTICE to reflect information about Google Closure Library
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 8/3/15, 1:59 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>As the GCL (incorrectly) doesn’t have a NOTICE file there’s no need to
>add it to NOTICE [1] and as it Apache licensed there no need to add it to
>LICENSE [1].
It is always hard to know what the “right” thing to do is, but note that
in [3], sebb recommends listing non-ASF AL2.0 dependencies in LICENSE.
>
>However probably best in this case is to assume it had a generic NOTICE
>and just add something like this:
>"This software contains code from the Google Closure Library, copyright
>Google XXXX”
>
>My reasoning is that all of the bundled code, while Apache licensed, is
>not copyright the ASF and nor was it developed at Apache and it would be
>a bit cheeky to imply (by omission) that it was. Sadly the documentation
>at the licensing how to is a little unclear on how to add non ASF Apache
>licensed software, particularly when they are missing a NOTICE file.
Well, that is reasonable reasoning, however, our last advice on this topic
is here at [4] which would imply no change to NOTICE.
-Alex
>
>Current versions of LICENSE/ NOTICE are probably not a release blockers,
>as having a little much info is more a documentation issue than an
>licensing error. Although it is best to try and keep NOTICE contents to a
>minimum.
>
>Are any of the GCL MIT/BSD licensed bits included / bundled? Is so they
>will need need to be mentioned in LICENSE [2]
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
>2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
[3] http://s.apache.org/qDa
[4] http://s.apache.org/vP7