You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@marmotta.apache.org by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> on 2013/04/02 12:56:53 UTC
new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Hi,
I've spend the whole morning reading your comments regarding the NOTICE
and LICENSE files, reading again some ASF documents and taking a look
how other projects (CouchDB for instance) with similar setup do it. And
I think I got a version which all of us should be satisfied.
Please, take a look at the git repository:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE.txt;h=0cb5d64e2e9e49ccc4996fc09d4ea900032832bf;hb=HEAD
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE.txt;h=8eeb0be8ae43dd070358a9b4199eba496754e613;hb=HEAD
These files are directly going into the source distribution in the build
process, so easier to check without need to create releases.
Basically:
* NOTICE is significantly shorter
* LICENSE is not divided in 4 sections:
1) main project license
2) libraries included
3) 3rd party source code
4) 3rd party data files
Using this template for each item there:
"""
For the FOO component,
located at:
path/to/FOO
Copyright (c) YYYY NAME, http://FOO
FULL LICENSE TEXT
"""
So no templated license anymore in LICENSE.
According http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
LICENSE must need to include only those components licensed with BSD
(without advertising clause) or MIT/X11, but I also included those two
cases licensed with AL2 that we had modified their source code.
Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
So, summarizing the last work around LICENSE and NOTICE, this would be
the final outcome that would go on the RC6:
Source distribution:
-------------------
LICENSE:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE.txt;hb=HEAD
NOTICE:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob_plain;f=NOTICE.txt;hb=HEAD
Webapp binary distribution:
--------------------------
LICENSE:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob_plain;f=launchers/marmotta-webapp/LICENSE.txt;hb=HEAD
NOTICE:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob_plain;f=launchers/marmotta-webapp/NOTICE.txt;hb=HEAD
Installer binary distribution:
-----------------------------
LICENSE:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob_plain;f=launchers/marmotta-installer/src/main/resources/installer/LICENSE.txt;hb=HEAD
NOTICE:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob_plain;f=launchers/marmotta-installer/src/main/resources/installer/NOTICE.txt;hb=HEAD
LDPath binary distribution:
--------------------------
LICENSE:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob_plain;f=libraries/ldpath/ldpath-backend-linkeddata/src/main/doc/LICENSE.txt;hb=HEAD
NOTICE:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob_plain;f=libraries/ldpath/ldpath-backend-linkeddata/src/main/doc/NOTICE.txt;hb=HEAD
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On 05/04/13 21:18, Fabian Christ wrote:
> I think it is okay to handle it like this but I would like to stress
> one point (again).
>
> The point why we need a NOTICE file is out of legal reasons. This file
> is ONLY meant for such legal requirements. It does not matter how
> useful you find it to list things. There is no problem to have other
> files for such things. But please do not misuse the NOTICE - that's
> the whole point. Just be prepared that other people at the ASF may
> have a very strong opinion about this.
Which is good: we are here (incubating) to learn how to properly do
those things. I've developed open source for almost 15 years, and I
never face such issues from this perspective, which it's been very
enlightening for me.
> But, as I said (and Andy), from my experience it should be okay like this.
Perfect. And, as I said many times, tanks you all for your support on
this process.
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
2013/4/4 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>:
> Yes, according
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>
> "Under normal circumstances, there is no need to modify NOTICE."
>
> But I find useful to have it list them there, we could thought it away if
> it'd be a problem
I think it is okay to handle it like this but I would like to stress
one point (again).
The point why we need a NOTICE file is out of legal reasons. This file
is ONLY meant for such legal requirements. It does not matter how
useful you find it to list things. There is no problem to have other
files for such things. But please do not misuse the NOTICE - that's
the whole point. Just be prepared that other people at the ASF may
have a very strong opinion about this.
But, as I said (and Andy), from my experience it should be okay like this.
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt
Re: new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Since now I think we are is a much better position, I'll continue
working on the weekend to finish this stuff. and probably on Monday
we'll be in the position to try the RC6.
BTW, this has taken longer than expected, so we'd also need to take a
look what things from the develop branch could be merged to master for
having those fixes already in the release.
Have a nice weekend!
Cheers,
On 05/04/13 10:05, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> On 05/04/13 09:51, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> Looks good to me - as Nandana, slightly more than necessary but I do
>> agree that a single audit point is useful (and there is prior usage in
>> other projects).
>
> Exactly. I found very useful to collect all there. So I think I'll keep
> it in that way.
>
>> the licnese do not have to be incuded in LICENSE, a link to the licence
>> is sufficient for permissive licenses, as per the text in
>> #permissive-deps.
>
> That's true, #permissive-deps says that pointers are sufficient. Our
> current approach is pretty inspired by how CouchDb does it:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb/trunk/LICENSE
>
> But if you find LICENSE too long we could switch to just pointers, to
> the source tree or to its web URL. I'll wait for more comments.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi Andy,
On 05/04/13 09:51, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Looks good to me - as Nandana, slightly more than necessary but I do
> agree that a single audit point is useful (and there is prior usage in
> other projects).
Exactly. I found very useful to collect all there. So I think I'll keep
it in that way.
> the licnese do not have to be incuded in LICENSE, a link to the licence
> is sufficient for permissive licenses, as per the text in #permissive-deps.
That's true, #permissive-deps says that pointers are sufficient. Our
current approach is pretty inspired by how CouchDb does it:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb/trunk/LICENSE
But if you find LICENSE too long we could switch to just pointers, to
the source tree or to its web URL. I'll wait for more comments.
Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 04/04/13 14:08, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> Hi Nandana,
>
> On 04/04/13 14:27, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya wrote:
>> I took a quick look at the LICENCE file and the NOTICE file that will
>> go to
>> the source distribution. It looks good ( though some of the copyright
>> statements might not be necessary in the NOTICE when the dependency
>> source
>> is properly annotated according to "elements such as the copyright
>> notifications embedded within BSD and MIT licenses need not be duplicated
>> in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in their original
>> locations." but I think we can live with it).
>
> Yes, according
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>
> "Under normal circumstances, there is no need to modify NOTICE."
>
> But I find useful to have it list them there, we could thought it away
> if it'd be a problem
Looks good to me - as Nandana, slightly more than necessary but I do
agree that a single audit point is useful (and there is prior usage in
other projects).
the licnese do not have to be incuded in LICENSE, a link to the licence
is sufficient for permissive licenses, as per the text in #permissive-deps.
Andy
>
>> You will give us sometime to review the LICENCE file and the NOTICE
>> file of
>> the binary distribution too before starting the vote, right ?
>
> Sure! This morning I was working on the installer, these are the LICENSE
> and NOTICE for its distribution:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=launchers/marmotta-installer/src/main/resources/installer/LICENSE.txt;h=ba7be792c097b0252d98aedbbe6fc7e45e90f72f;hb=HEAD
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=launchers/marmotta-installer/src/main/resources/installer/NOTICE.txt;h=6bd83fe6948b7762ec653ab9a091bc0b8e7cdb00;hb=HEAD
>
>
> I'd really appreciate if someone could tell me in this would be valid,
> or I need to change something.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
>
Re: new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi Nandana,
On 04/04/13 14:27, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya wrote:
> I took a quick look at the LICENCE file and the NOTICE file that will go to
> the source distribution. It looks good ( though some of the copyright
> statements might not be necessary in the NOTICE when the dependency source
> is properly annotated according to "elements such as the copyright
> notifications embedded within BSD and MIT licenses need not be duplicated
> in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in their original
> locations." but I think we can live with it).
Yes, according
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
"Under normal circumstances, there is no need to modify NOTICE."
But I find useful to have it list them there, we could thought it away
if it'd be a problem
> You will give us sometime to review the LICENCE file and the NOTICE file of
> the binary distribution too before starting the vote, right ?
Sure! This morning I was working on the installer, these are the LICENSE
and NOTICE for its distribution:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=launchers/marmotta-installer/src/main/resources/installer/LICENSE.txt;h=ba7be792c097b0252d98aedbbe6fc7e45e90f72f;hb=HEAD
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=launchers/marmotta-installer/src/main/resources/installer/NOTICE.txt;h=6bd83fe6948b7762ec653ab9a091bc0b8e7cdb00;hb=HEAD
I'd really appreciate if someone could tell me in this would be valid,
or I need to change something.
Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Posted by Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <na...@gmail.com>.
Hi Sergio,
I took a quick look at the LICENCE file and the NOTICE file that will go to
the source distribution. It looks good ( though some of the copyright
statements might not be necessary in the NOTICE when the dependency source
is properly annotated according to "elements such as the copyright
notifications embedded within BSD and MIT licenses need not be duplicated
in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in their original
locations." but I think we can live with it).
You will give us sometime to review the LICENCE file and the NOTICE file of
the binary distribution too before starting the vote, right ?
Best Regards,
Nandana
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 04/04/13 09:39, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> I haven't had time to look due to $work.
>>
>
> That was I supposed... when, you or another mentor, do you think would
> have time for check it?
>
> As usual, thanks for your kind support :-)
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
>
--
Best Regards,
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya
Re: new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
On 04/04/13 09:39, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> I haven't had time to look due to $work.
That was I supposed... when, you or another mentor, do you think would
have time for check it?
As usual, thanks for your kind support :-)
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 04/04/13 07:35, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> Since looks no one opposes to the proposed approach to solve the issue,
> I'll start to implement it also for the binary distributions.
I haven't had time to look due to $work.
Andy
>
> I hope we'd be ready for a new RC in the afternoon.
>
> On 02/04/13 17:38, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> As soon as I get the OK for this approach I can start to apply it to the
>> binary releases too, which are even harder :-S
>>
>> On 02/04/13 12:56, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've spend the whole morning reading your comments regarding the NOTICE
>>> and LICENSE files, reading again some ASF documents and taking a look
>>> how other projects (CouchDB for instance) with similar setup do it. And
>>> I think I got a version which all of us should be satisfied.
>>>
>>> Please, take a look at the git repository:
>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE.txt;h=0cb5d64e2e9e49ccc4996fc09d4ea900032832bf;hb=HEAD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE.txt;h=8eeb0be8ae43dd070358a9b4199eba496754e613;hb=HEAD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> These files are directly going into the source distribution in the build
>>> process, so easier to check without need to create releases.
>>>
>>>
>>> Basically:
>>>
>>> * NOTICE is significantly shorter
>>>
>>> * LICENSE is not divided in 4 sections:
>>> 1) main project license
>>> 2) libraries included
>>> 3) 3rd party source code
>>> 4) 3rd party data files
>>>
>>>
>>> Using this template for each item there:
>>>
>>> """
>>>
>>> For the FOO component,
>>>
>>> located at:
>>> path/to/FOO
>>>
>>> Copyright (c) YYYY NAME, http://FOO
>>>
>>> FULL LICENSE TEXT
>>>
>>> """
>>>
>>> So no templated license anymore in LICENSE.
>>>
>>> According http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>>> LICENSE must need to include only those components licensed with BSD
>>> (without advertising clause) or MIT/X11, but I also included those two
>>> cases licensed with AL2 that we had modified their source code.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>
>
Re: new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Since looks no one opposes to the proposed approach to solve the issue,
I'll start to implement it also for the binary distributions.
I hope we'd be ready for a new RC in the afternoon.
On 02/04/13 17:38, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> As soon as I get the OK for this approach I can start to apply it to the
> binary releases too, which are even harder :-S
>
> On 02/04/13 12:56, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've spend the whole morning reading your comments regarding the NOTICE
>> and LICENSE files, reading again some ASF documents and taking a look
>> how other projects (CouchDB for instance) with similar setup do it. And
>> I think I got a version which all of us should be satisfied.
>>
>> Please, take a look at the git repository:
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE.txt;h=0cb5d64e2e9e49ccc4996fc09d4ea900032832bf;hb=HEAD
>>
>>
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE.txt;h=8eeb0be8ae43dd070358a9b4199eba496754e613;hb=HEAD
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> These files are directly going into the source distribution in the build
>> process, so easier to check without need to create releases.
>>
>>
>> Basically:
>>
>> * NOTICE is significantly shorter
>>
>> * LICENSE is not divided in 4 sections:
>> 1) main project license
>> 2) libraries included
>> 3) 3rd party source code
>> 4) 3rd party data files
>>
>>
>> Using this template for each item there:
>>
>> """
>>
>> For the FOO component,
>>
>> located at:
>> path/to/FOO
>>
>> Copyright (c) YYYY NAME, http://FOO
>>
>> FULL LICENSE TEXT
>>
>> """
>>
>> So no templated license anymore in LICENSE.
>>
>> According http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>> LICENSE must need to include only those components licensed with BSD
>> (without advertising clause) or MIT/X11, but I also included those two
>> cases licensed with AL2 that we had modified their source code.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: new NOTICE and LICENSE style to check
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
As soon as I get the OK for this approach I can start to apply it to the
binary releases too, which are even harder :-S
On 02/04/13 12:56, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've spend the whole morning reading your comments regarding the NOTICE
> and LICENSE files, reading again some ASF documents and taking a look
> how other projects (CouchDB for instance) with similar setup do it. And
> I think I got a version which all of us should be satisfied.
>
> Please, take a look at the git repository:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE.txt;h=0cb5d64e2e9e49ccc4996fc09d4ea900032832bf;hb=HEAD
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-marmotta.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE.txt;h=8eeb0be8ae43dd070358a9b4199eba496754e613;hb=HEAD
>
>
>
> These files are directly going into the source distribution in the build
> process, so easier to check without need to create releases.
>
>
> Basically:
>
> * NOTICE is significantly shorter
>
> * LICENSE is not divided in 4 sections:
> 1) main project license
> 2) libraries included
> 3) 3rd party source code
> 4) 3rd party data files
>
>
> Using this template for each item there:
>
> """
>
> For the FOO component,
>
> located at:
> path/to/FOO
>
> Copyright (c) YYYY NAME, http://FOO
>
> FULL LICENSE TEXT
>
> """
>
> So no templated license anymore in LICENSE.
>
> According http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> LICENSE must need to include only those components licensed with BSD
> (without advertising clause) or MIT/X11, but I also included those two
> cases licensed with AL2 that we had modified their source code.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
>
--
Sergio Fernández