You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> on 2009/08/17 21:32:44 UTC
Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes of 3rd party
licensing policy?
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Robert Burrell
Donkin<rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59 arose on the incubator
> list. i'm agnostic but a definite decision would resolve the debate
> about whether it needs to be included in the NOTICE.
>
> opinions?
My opinion: no.
NOTICE is for things notices intended for end-users. Things like
clause for in the Apache Software License, version 1.1, and the UC
Berkley advertising clause in the original BSD license.
Think in terms of what information would be required to appear in an
'about' panel, if the product in question had a GUI.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes of 3rd party
licensing policy?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Sam Ruby<ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Robert Burrell
> Donkin<rd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59 arose on the incubator
>> list. i'm agnostic but a definite decision would resolve the debate
>> about whether it needs to be included in the NOTICE.
>>
>> opinions?
>
> My opinion: no.
>
> NOTICE is for things notices intended for end-users. Things like
> clause for in the Apache Software License, version 1.1, and the UC
> Berkley advertising clause in the original BSD license.
>
> Think in terms of what information would be required to appear in an
> 'about' panel, if the product in question had a GUI.
+1.
I like the solution of including the LICENSE (wherever that may be) as
I think it handles most of the attribution requirements out there. The
particular phrase that must be repeated is always in the license :)
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org