You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> on 2014/11/19 18:05:22 UTC
[SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Hi,
Imagine that, me needing 'legal' advise ;-)
There are two files that came with the FlatSpark theme donation:
/frameworks/projects/flatspark/src/flatspark/assets/fonts/awesome/OFL.txt
and
/frameworks/projects/flatspark/src/flatspark/assets/fonts/lato/OFL.txt and
Rat complains about these not having an Apache license header. Now, since
it doesn't seem to make sense to as a license header to a license file,
what is the preferred course of action here?
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> /frameworks/projects/flatspark/src/flatspark/assets/fonts/awesome/OFL.txt
> and
> /frameworks/projects/flatspark/src/flatspark/assets/fonts/lato/OFL.txt
OFL is category B and as per [1] "Software under the following licenses may be included in binary form within an Apache product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled:"
Translation is that it just need to be added to LICENSE - see existing SDK license for an example.
BTW Fonts often have license info in the metadata, also legally you can't change something from an existing licence to Apache that would be a grave licensing error.
Thanks,
Justin
1,. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
Re: [SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 11/19/14, 2:04 PM, "Mahmoud Ali" <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I think I'm a little late, from what I'm seeing this was just a problem
>with RAT and not with the licenses, right?
That’s my understanding. Thanks for checking in.
-Alex
Re: [SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Posted by Mahmoud Ali <mu...@gmail.com>.
I think I'm a little late, from what I'm seeing this was just a problem
with RAT and not with the licenses, right?
Also, It looks like this is all resolved by now. If I can help with
anything on this, just let me know.
Re: [SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Reverted and added exclude.
Thanks for you patience! I won't claim to understand any of this, but I'm
glad we found an easy solution and managed to deflect and long drawn out
discussion ;-)
EdB
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I agree it is very confusing. IMO, there are two choices based on
> the repo before you made changes:
>
> 1) just add the two OFL.txt files to the RAT excludes.
> 2) copy the entirety of the two OFL.txt files including the copyrights
> into LICENSE and don’t touch NOTICE.
>
> My understanding is that we’re not supposed to edit a third-party license,
> which is effectively what you did by splitting the OFL.txt file into two
> pieces. NOTICE doesn’t have to contain the copyright for every
> third-party copyright, only when the third-party license itself requires
> attribution but doesn’t have a place for that attribution in the template
> for the third-party license. There is no one rule for every third-party
> license.
>
> I would prefer #1 because having two copies of OFL.txt with different
> copyrights at the top makes LICENSE look like it has duplication and the
> how-to recommends pointers. And yes, I will make the changes if you want
> me to.
>
> Sorry and thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 11/19/14, 12:49 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
> >And: why does this have to be so difficult? Between the NOTICE and the
> >LICENSE it is very clear who own the copyright to - and which license
> >applies to - the fonts. What more can one want, or why would you do less,
> >given that the fonts are open source?
> >
> >EdB
> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Nope. You lost me completely. Shall I revert and leave it to the
> >>experts?
> >> Or can you tell me what to change, without explaining why, please?
> >>
> >> EdB
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/19/14, 11:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >I followed some of the other 'external' licenses, which have a copy of
> >>> the
> >>> >license in LICENSE (with a sentence explaining to what it applies) and
> >>> the
> >>> >original copy right claims of the authors in NOTICE (with a mention of
> >>> the
> >>> >applicable license). I have just committed my changes, feel free to
> >>> review
> >>> >those.
> >>>
> >>> I did look. My understanding of the rules is that some licenses tell
> >>>the
> >>> author to add their copyright to the license text, and in those cases,
> >>>I
> >>> think we’re not supposed to modify the license text to separate out the
> >>> copyrights into the NOTICE file. Instead, just use a pointer in
> >>>LICENSE
> >>> (i.e., tell folks where to find the third-party license file) which is
> >>>how
> >>> I’d told the FlatSpark folks to do it, or copy the whole third-party
> >>> license with the copyrights into LICENSE which is sort of what
> >>>happened in
> >>> Squiggly.
> >>>
> >>> It is the Apache policy that has us move copyrights for donated code to
> >>> NOTICE.
> >>>
> >>> And in the case where the license requires attribution but no
> >>>attribution
> >>> is in the LICENSE like the CameronMusic sound, we mentioned the
> >>>creator in
> >>> the NOTICE.
> >>>
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ix Multimedia Software
> >>
> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> >>
> >> T. 06-51952295
> >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Ix Multimedia Software
> >
> >Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >3521 VB Utrecht
> >
> >T. 06-51952295
> >I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Sorry, I agree it is very confusing. IMO, there are two choices based on
the repo before you made changes:
1) just add the two OFL.txt files to the RAT excludes.
2) copy the entirety of the two OFL.txt files including the copyrights
into LICENSE and don’t touch NOTICE.
My understanding is that we’re not supposed to edit a third-party license,
which is effectively what you did by splitting the OFL.txt file into two
pieces. NOTICE doesn’t have to contain the copyright for every
third-party copyright, only when the third-party license itself requires
attribution but doesn’t have a place for that attribution in the template
for the third-party license. There is no one rule for every third-party
license.
I would prefer #1 because having two copies of OFL.txt with different
copyrights at the top makes LICENSE look like it has duplication and the
how-to recommends pointers. And yes, I will make the changes if you want
me to.
Sorry and thanks,
-Alex
On 11/19/14, 12:49 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>And: why does this have to be so difficult? Between the NOTICE and the
>LICENSE it is very clear who own the copyright to - and which license
>applies to - the fonts. What more can one want, or why would you do less,
>given that the fonts are open source?
>
>EdB
>
>
>
>On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>> Nope. You lost me completely. Shall I revert and leave it to the
>>experts?
>> Or can you tell me what to change, without explaining why, please?
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/19/14, 11:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I followed some of the other 'external' licenses, which have a copy of
>>> the
>>> >license in LICENSE (with a sentence explaining to what it applies) and
>>> the
>>> >original copy right claims of the authors in NOTICE (with a mention of
>>> the
>>> >applicable license). I have just committed my changes, feel free to
>>> review
>>> >those.
>>>
>>> I did look. My understanding of the rules is that some licenses tell
>>>the
>>> author to add their copyright to the license text, and in those cases,
>>>I
>>> think we’re not supposed to modify the license text to separate out the
>>> copyrights into the NOTICE file. Instead, just use a pointer in
>>>LICENSE
>>> (i.e., tell folks where to find the third-party license file) which is
>>>how
>>> I’d told the FlatSpark folks to do it, or copy the whole third-party
>>> license with the copyrights into LICENSE which is sort of what
>>>happened in
>>> Squiggly.
>>>
>>> It is the Apache policy that has us move copyrights for donated code to
>>> NOTICE.
>>>
>>> And in the case where the license requires attribution but no
>>>attribution
>>> is in the LICENSE like the CameronMusic sound, we mentioned the
>>>creator in
>>> the NOTICE.
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>
>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>
>> T. 06-51952295
>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Ix Multimedia Software
>
>Jan Luykenstraat 27
>3521 VB Utrecht
>
>T. 06-51952295
>I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
And: why does this have to be so difficult? Between the NOTICE and the
LICENSE it is very clear who own the copyright to - and which license
applies to - the fonts. What more can one want, or why would you do less,
given that the fonts are open source?
EdB
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> Nope. You lost me completely. Shall I revert and leave it to the experts?
> Or can you tell me what to change, without explaining why, please?
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/19/14, 11:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>>
>> >I followed some of the other 'external' licenses, which have a copy of
>> the
>> >license in LICENSE (with a sentence explaining to what it applies) and
>> the
>> >original copy right claims of the authors in NOTICE (with a mention of
>> the
>> >applicable license). I have just committed my changes, feel free to
>> review
>> >those.
>>
>> I did look. My understanding of the rules is that some licenses tell the
>> author to add their copyright to the license text, and in those cases, I
>> think we’re not supposed to modify the license text to separate out the
>> copyrights into the NOTICE file. Instead, just use a pointer in LICENSE
>> (i.e., tell folks where to find the third-party license file) which is how
>> I’d told the FlatSpark folks to do it, or copy the whole third-party
>> license with the copyrights into LICENSE which is sort of what happened in
>> Squiggly.
>>
>> It is the Apache policy that has us move copyrights for donated code to
>> NOTICE.
>>
>> And in the case where the license requires attribution but no attribution
>> is in the LICENSE like the CameronMusic sound, we mentioned the creator in
>> the NOTICE.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Nope. You lost me completely. Shall I revert and leave it to the experts?
Or can you tell me what to change, without explaining why, please?
EdB
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/19/14, 11:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
> >I followed some of the other 'external' licenses, which have a copy of the
> >license in LICENSE (with a sentence explaining to what it applies) and the
> >original copy right claims of the authors in NOTICE (with a mention of the
> >applicable license). I have just committed my changes, feel free to review
> >those.
>
> I did look. My understanding of the rules is that some licenses tell the
> author to add their copyright to the license text, and in those cases, I
> think we’re not supposed to modify the license text to separate out the
> copyrights into the NOTICE file. Instead, just use a pointer in LICENSE
> (i.e., tell folks where to find the third-party license file) which is how
> I’d told the FlatSpark folks to do it, or copy the whole third-party
> license with the copyrights into LICENSE which is sort of what happened in
> Squiggly.
>
> It is the Apache policy that has us move copyrights for donated code to
> NOTICE.
>
> And in the case where the license requires attribution but no attribution
> is in the LICENSE like the CameronMusic sound, we mentioned the creator in
> the NOTICE.
>
> -Alex
>
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 11/19/14, 11:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>I followed some of the other 'external' licenses, which have a copy of the
>license in LICENSE (with a sentence explaining to what it applies) and the
>original copy right claims of the authors in NOTICE (with a mention of the
>applicable license). I have just committed my changes, feel free to review
>those.
I did look. My understanding of the rules is that some licenses tell the
author to add their copyright to the license text, and in those cases, I
think we’re not supposed to modify the license text to separate out the
copyrights into the NOTICE file. Instead, just use a pointer in LICENSE
(i.e., tell folks where to find the third-party license file) which is how
I’d told the FlatSpark folks to do it, or copy the whole third-party
license with the copyrights into LICENSE which is sort of what happened in
Squiggly.
It is the Apache policy that has us move copyrights for donated code to
NOTICE.
And in the case where the license requires attribution but no attribution
is in the LICENSE like the CameronMusic sound, we mentioned the creator in
the NOTICE.
-Alex
Re: [SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
I followed some of the other 'external' licenses, which have a copy of the
license in LICENSE (with a sentence explaining to what it applies) and the
original copy right claims of the authors in NOTICE (with a mention of the
applicable license). I have just committed my changes, feel free to review
those.
EdB
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Sorry this is late, I was deep in Mustella crap. It would have been
> sufficient to simply add those files as excludes to RAT. The
> recommendation in the LICENSE and NOTICE how-to is for pointers.
>
> But if you want to copy the OFL License into LICENSE, just copy it as-is,
> I don’t think you are supposed to break out the copyright into NOTICE.
> See the Squiggly LICENSE.
>
> -Alex
>
>
>
> On 11/19/14, 9:16 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
> >My guess would be: add license from file to LICENSE, add attributions and
> >notifications to NOTICE and remove both 'OFL.txt' files altogether?
> >
> >EdB
> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Imagine that, me needing 'legal' advise ;-)
> >>
> >> There are two files that came with the FlatSpark theme donation:
> >>
> >>
> >>/frameworks/projects/flatspark/src/flatspark/assets/fonts/awesome/OFL.txt
> >> and
> >> /frameworks/projects/flatspark/src/flatspark/assets/fonts/lato/OFL.txt
> >>and
> >>
> >> Rat complains about these not having an Apache license header. Now,
> >>since
> >> it doesn't seem to make sense to as a license header to a license file,
> >> what is the preferred course of action here?
> >>
> >> EdB
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ix Multimedia Software
> >>
> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> >>
> >> T. 06-51952295
> >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Ix Multimedia Software
> >
> >Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >3521 VB Utrecht
> >
> >T. 06-51952295
> >I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Sorry this is late, I was deep in Mustella crap. It would have been
sufficient to simply add those files as excludes to RAT. The
recommendation in the LICENSE and NOTICE how-to is for pointers.
But if you want to copy the OFL License into LICENSE, just copy it as-is,
I don’t think you are supposed to break out the copyright into NOTICE.
See the Squiggly LICENSE.
-Alex
On 11/19/14, 9:16 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>My guess would be: add license from file to LICENSE, add attributions and
>notifications to NOTICE and remove both 'OFL.txt' files altogether?
>
>EdB
>
>
>
>On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Imagine that, me needing 'legal' advise ;-)
>>
>> There are two files that came with the FlatSpark theme donation:
>>
>>
>>/frameworks/projects/flatspark/src/flatspark/assets/fonts/awesome/OFL.txt
>> and
>> /frameworks/projects/flatspark/src/flatspark/assets/fonts/lato/OFL.txt
>>and
>>
>> Rat complains about these not having an Apache license header. Now,
>>since
>> it doesn't seem to make sense to as a license header to a license file,
>> what is the preferred course of action here?
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>
>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>
>> T. 06-51952295
>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Ix Multimedia Software
>
>Jan Luykenstraat 27
>3521 VB Utrecht
>
>T. 06-51952295
>I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
My guess would be: add license from file to LICENSE, add attributions and
notifications to NOTICE and remove both 'OFL.txt' files altogether?
EdB
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Imagine that, me needing 'legal' advise ;-)
>
> There are two files that came with the FlatSpark theme donation:
>
> /frameworks/projects/flatspark/src/flatspark/assets/fonts/awesome/OFL.txt
> and
> /frameworks/projects/flatspark/src/flatspark/assets/fonts/lato/OFL.txt and
>
> Rat complains about these not having an Apache license header. Now, since
> it doesn't seem to make sense to as a license header to a license file,
> what is the preferred course of action here?
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl