Re: Licenses

[Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>]

On 11/05/2011 07:30 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 5 November 2011 14:01, Scott Wilson<sc...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> On 5 Nov 2011, at 10:51, Ate Douma wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2011 11:29 AM, "Scott Wilson"<sc...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So is the omission that:
>>>>
>>>> 1. a copy of the BSD and MIT licenses must also be transcluded
>>>>
>>>
>>> This. AFAIK the 0.9.0 release did this already correct.
>>
>> OK just to be 100% clear...
>>
>> We need a generic copy of the BSD license text, and a generic copy of the MIT license text?
>>
>> Just thinking these will not then include the copyright notice of the specific code being reused.  Or is that covered by the link to the original project?
>>
>
> Follow Ate's lead on this as he has been far more rigorous in his
> checks so we'll do it his way.
>
>> I'm happy to sort this out - I think Paul needs a break :-)
>
> Paul - it's a thankless task as anyone who has cut an early release
> knows. Thank you for your efforts, we are almost there.
>
>> (Also: Is the "licenses" folder in trunk obsolete?)
>
> My own preferred way of doing licence management is to have a file in
> the licences folder with the name of the library it applies to (e.g.
> "FooBar_license.txt") this means that to do an audit you just count
> the number of files in that directory and compare it with the number
> of third party libraries. NOTICE simply requires a reference to each
> third party library that requires an entry (not all do).
>
> However, under Ate's guidance we seem to have gone in a different
> direction. As I mention above, it's best to follow his lead here as he
> is clearly putting a great deal of effort into checking releases for
> us.
I'm happy to provide 'guidance' here, but note that the only thing I do is 
trying to follow the Incubator Release Management guidelines themselves.
So, please *do* check those yourself as well ;)

With regards to what and where to put the 3rd party LICENSE texts, the Incubator 
Release Management is nowadays quite specific in this regard (see also [1]):

   Apache projects may distribute artifacts and documents as part of a release
   which are not Apache Licensed. All such artifacts must comply with Apache's
   3rd party licensing policy.

   All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should be
   included in the LICENSE document. [...] The Apache License is at the top of
   the LICENSE document. After that, the license for each non-Apache licensed
   component is included, along with a clear explanation of which files that
   license applies to.

   The NOTICE document is for additional copyright and attribution statements
   those licenses may require. A typical NOTICE document at a minimum includes a
   copyright and attribution statement for The Apache Software Foundation.
   Nothing else belongs in the NOTICE document.

And they give links to two good examples (HTTPD) how to do this (see online).

[1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license

>
> Ross
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>