You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-dev@lucene.apache.org by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> on 2006/12/01 09:59:52 UTC
Re: release requirements status
On 11/30/06, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...I'm not sure if we need to note anything about Jetty in LICENSE or
> NOTICE or not... it already uses the ASL 2.0 license, but does seem to
> contain other licenses within it....
How about creating a "legal" directory with copies of Jetty's (and
other) license files?
I see there are some in example/etc, maybe a top-level "legal" would be clearer?
This is how we do it in Cocoon, see
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/legal/
-Bertrand
Re: release requirements status
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ooops, sent a bit too early -- meant "wow, I was really wrong about
> this, good to know" and "cool, thanks for pointing it out" ;)...
So I was wrong about being wrong ;-)
Actually, in the case of Jetty, I think we should say something like
The Jetty web server code distributed with this software was
developed by Mort Bay Consulting
(http://www.mortbay.org), the original software is available from
their website.
In the NOTICE.txt, based on http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
-Bertrand
Re: release requirements status
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Ooops, sent a bit too early -- meant "wow, I was really wrong about
this, good to know" and "cool, thanks for pointing it out" ;)
Yoav
On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Wow, cool.
>
> Yoav
>
> On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Ahh, here's the pointer:
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
> >
> > '''
> > If A Distribution Contains Code Under Several Licenses, Should It
> > Contain Several License Files?
> >
> > No - all license information should be contained in the LICENSE file.
> >
> > When a distribution contains code under several licenses, the LICENSE
> > file should contain details of all these licenses. For each component
> > which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and the license
> > under which the component is distributed should be appended to the
> > LICENSE file.
> > '''
> >
> > -Yonik
> >
> > On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > I thought this was exactly what the NOTICE file is for? Mention all
> > > > the code from other projects we use, including ASL code. LICENSE is
> > > > just for our own (Solr) stuff.
> > >
> > > LICENSE needs to apply to everything in the distribution.
> > > Solr's current LICENSE has ASL 2.0, followed by the license for the
> > > XML parser we use, as directed by legal-discuss.
> > >
> > > -Yonik
> > >
> >
>
Re: release requirements status
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Wow, cool.
Yoav
On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ahh, here's the pointer:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>
> '''
> If A Distribution Contains Code Under Several Licenses, Should It
> Contain Several License Files?
>
> No - all license information should be contained in the LICENSE file.
>
> When a distribution contains code under several licenses, the LICENSE
> file should contain details of all these licenses. For each component
> which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and the license
> under which the component is distributed should be appended to the
> LICENSE file.
> '''
>
> -Yonik
>
> On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > I thought this was exactly what the NOTICE file is for? Mention all
> > > the code from other projects we use, including ASL code. LICENSE is
> > > just for our own (Solr) stuff.
> >
> > LICENSE needs to apply to everything in the distribution.
> > Solr's current LICENSE has ASL 2.0, followed by the license for the
> > XML parser we use, as directed by legal-discuss.
> >
> > -Yonik
> >
>
Re: release requirements status
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org>.
Ahh, here's the pointer:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
'''
If A Distribution Contains Code Under Several Licenses, Should It
Contain Several License Files?
No - all license information should be contained in the LICENSE file.
When a distribution contains code under several licenses, the LICENSE
file should contain details of all these licenses. For each component
which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and the license
under which the component is distributed should be appended to the
LICENSE file.
'''
-Yonik
On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I thought this was exactly what the NOTICE file is for? Mention all
> > the code from other projects we use, including ASL code. LICENSE is
> > just for our own (Solr) stuff.
>
> LICENSE needs to apply to everything in the distribution.
> Solr's current LICENSE has ASL 2.0, followed by the license for the
> XML parser we use, as directed by legal-discuss.
>
> -Yonik
>
Re: release requirements status
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org>.
On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I thought this was exactly what the NOTICE file is for? Mention all
> the code from other projects we use, including ASL code. LICENSE is
> just for our own (Solr) stuff.
LICENSE needs to apply to everything in the distribution.
Solr's current LICENSE has ASL 2.0, followed by the license for the
XML parser we use, as directed by legal-discuss.
-Yonik
Re: release requirements status
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...I thought this was exactly what the NOTICE file is for? Mention all
> the code from other projects we use, including ASL code. LICENSE is
> just for our own (Solr) stuff...
Hmmm..you're right (it's Friday here, it's been a long week ;-)
-Bertrand
Re: release requirements status
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On 12/1/06, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > ...Part of the problem is one can't look at other ASF project releases
> > for much guidance since many would not pass the current scrutiny of
> > the incubator....
>
> You're right...so maybe we could mention AL-licensed code that we use
> in LICENSE.txt?
>
> Something like
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This product includes code from other projects which
> use the Apache License:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lucene (http://lucene.apache.org/java/)
> Jetty (http://www.mortbay.org/)
>
> -Bertrand
I thought this was exactly what the NOTICE file is for? Mention all
the code from other projects we use, including ASL code. LICENSE is
just for our own (Solr) stuff.
Yoav
Re: release requirements status
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...Part of the problem is one can't look at other ASF project releases
> for much guidance since many would not pass the current scrutiny of
> the incubator....
You're right...so maybe we could mention AL-licensed code that we use
in LICENSE.txt?
Something like
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This product includes code from other projects which
use the Apache License:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucene (http://lucene.apache.org/java/)
Jetty (http://www.mortbay.org/)
-Bertrand
Re: release requirements status
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org>.
On 12/1/06, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/30/06, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > ...I'm not sure if we need to note anything about Jetty in LICENSE or
> > NOTICE or not... it already uses the ASL 2.0 license, but does seem to
> > contain other licenses within it....
>
> How about creating a "legal" directory with copies of Jetty's (and
> other) license files?
>
> I see there are some in example/etc, maybe a top-level "legal" would be clearer?
AFAIK, best practice is currently a single NOTICE and LICENSE file at
the top with everything in it (or at a minimum pointers from the
LICENSE file to all other licenses).
Part of the problem is one can't look at other ASF project releases
for much guidance since many would not pass the current scrutiny of
the incubator.
-Yonik