You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Steve Varnau <st...@esgyn.com> on 2016/03/07 20:21:40 UTC
LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
Hi,
I’m compiling information for LICENSE file for a binary distribution. We
(Trafodion) have a bundled dependency that is Apache-2.0 license, but not
part of ASF. Do we need to call these out in the license file, or only
call out the things that are non-Apache-2.0?
Thanks,
--Steve
RE: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
Posted by Steve Varnau <st...@esgyn.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 7, 2016 2:10 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
>
> HI,
>
> Current recommendation is not to include it [1] but it’s not an error to
> do so.
>
> Justin
>
> 1.http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Good point. That section does make clear the distinction between the Apache
licensed SW and ASF SW.
Thanks,
-Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
Current recommendation is not to include it [1] but it’s not an error to do so.
Justin
1.http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 3/7/16, 2:38 PM, "Craig Russell" <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>Agreed. Sebb's recommendation, AIUI, was to simply mention in LICENSE
>>> that there is a non-ASF AL bundle without copying the entire LICENSE.
>
>That’s what I was objecting to. LICENSE is for licenses. If notice is
>required, then use NOTICE.
Hmm. It feels like maybe folks aren't actually reading the first link I
provided [1]. In it, sebb approves a patch to the how-to [2]. The how-to
currently recommends not placing 3rd party licenses in the LICENSE file
and instead using a template like:
This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
"3-clause BSD" license. For details, see deps/superwidget/.
In [1], the proposed patch is to use a similar template for non-ASF ALv2
bundles. The text being added is, AIUI, not stuff we are supposed to put
in NOTICE.
Justin is technically correct that [2] does not clearly state to list
non-ASF ALv2 bundles using the template but it would if the patch had been
applied. The patch would create a section that reads:
"Assuming once again that that the bundled dependency itself contains no
bundled subcomponents under other licenses and thus the ALv2 applies
uniformly to all files, there is no need to add another copy of the ALv2
license, but if the dependency is third-party, the LICENSE file should
include:
'Includes Foo V1.2 under the Apache License 2.0'"
I've been hoping someone braver than me would apply the patch, but now it
appears that Marvin is going to refresh the whole document, so maybe it
will finally get settled when his revision comes up for review.
Thanks,
-Alex
[1] http://s.apache.org/qDa
[2] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
>
>Craig
>
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>
>> Got it. Thanks Alex & Craig for the clarifications.
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>Craig L Russell
>Architect
>craig.russell@oracle.com
>P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>>> Agreed. Sebb's recommendation, AIUI, was to simply mention in LICENSE
>>> that there is a non-ASF AL bundle without copying the entire LICENSE.
>
> That’s what I was objecting to. LICENSE is for licenses. If notice is required, then use NOTICE.
+1 though I would word the latter more strongly. ONLY legally
required notices should go into NOTICE. Absolutely nothing else, as
doing so would increase the obligations on licensees.
Now in this case, if they have a NOTICE file, then by their their/our
license, we are obligated to include it in our NOTICE file (see Apache
License, Version 2 section 4, item d). Others can weigh in on short
vs long form of the licenses (it is a single copy, so I personally
don't see the issue), but as a legally required notice, it belongs in
the NOTICE file.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
Posted by Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
> On Mar 7, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Steve Varnau <st...@esgyn.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 7, 2016 1:09 PM
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
>>
>> On 3/7/16, 12:26 PM, "Craig Russell" <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand it, LICENSE is for licenses. Period. If advertising is
>>> required, the NOTICE file is used.
>>
>> Sorry, I should have been more clear. When I said "consider NOTICE" I
>> meant that any NOTICE for the non-ASF AL dependency may have content that
>> needs to into the NOTICE and not LICENSE.
>>
>>>
>>> If there are third party works included in a distribution that use the
>>> same Apache 2.0 license as any Apache components, the license file
>>> already contains the appropriate license.
>>
>> Agreed. Sebb's recommendation, AIUI, was to simply mention in LICENSE
>> that there is a non-ASF AL bundle without copying the entire LICENSE.
That’s what I was objecting to. LICENSE is for licenses. If notice is required, then use NOTICE.
Craig
>>
>> -Alex
>
> Got it. Thanks Alex & Craig for the clarifications.
>
> -Steve
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect
craig.russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
Posted by Steve Varnau <st...@esgyn.com>.
> From: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 7, 2016 1:09 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
>
> On 3/7/16, 12:26 PM, "Craig Russell" <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> >As I understand it, LICENSE is for licenses. Period. If advertising is
> >required, the NOTICE file is used.
>
> Sorry, I should have been more clear. When I said "consider NOTICE" I
> meant that any NOTICE for the non-ASF AL dependency may have content that
> needs to into the NOTICE and not LICENSE.
>
> >
> >If there are third party works included in a distribution that use the
> >same Apache 2.0 license as any Apache components, the license file
> >already contains the appropriate license.
>
> Agreed. Sebb's recommendation, AIUI, was to simply mention in LICENSE
> that there is a non-ASF AL bundle without copying the entire LICENSE.
>
> -Alex
Got it. Thanks Alex & Craig for the clarifications.
-Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 3/7/16, 12:26 PM, "Craig Russell" <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>As I understand it, LICENSE is for licenses. Period. If advertising is
>required, the NOTICE file is used.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. When I said "consider NOTICE" I
meant that any NOTICE for the non-ASF AL dependency may have content that
needs to into the NOTICE and not LICENSE.
>
>If there are third party works included in a distribution that use the
>same Apache 2.0 license as any Apache components, the license file
>already contains the appropriate license.
Agreed. Sebb's recommendation, AIUI, was to simply mention in LICENSE
that there is a non-ASF AL bundle without copying the entire LICENSE.
-Alex
Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
Posted by Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
As I understand it, LICENSE is for licenses. Period. If advertising is required, the NOTICE file is used.
If there are third party works included in a distribution that use the same Apache 2.0 license as any Apache components, the license file already contains the appropriate license.
Section 4 of the Apache 2.0 license discusses whether notice is required. All Apache distributions contain NOTICEs that call out Apache components. Does the third party distribution contain NOTICE requirements? Then the Apache distribution that includes the third party needs to contain the notice about the third party in its NOTICE.
Craig
> On Mar 7, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/7/16, 11:21 AM, "Steve Varnau" <st...@esgyn.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m compiling information for LICENSE file for a binary distribution. We
>> (Trafodion) have a bundled dependency that is Apache-2.0 license, but not
>> part of ASF. Do we need to call these out in the license file, or only
>> call out the things that are non-Apache-2.0?
>
>>
> Sebb says yes in [1], but IMO, it isn't wrong either way. Make sure you
> consider the NOTICE file though. Hopefully Marvin will nail this down one
> way or the other in the next revision of the how-to.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> [1] http://s.apache.org/qDa
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 3/7/16, 11:21 AM, "Steve Varnau" <st...@esgyn.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>
>
>I’m compiling information for LICENSE file for a binary distribution. We
>(Trafodion) have a bundled dependency that is Apache-2.0 license, but not
>part of ASF. Do we need to call these out in the license file, or only
>call out the things that are non-Apache-2.0?
>
Sebb says yes in [1], but IMO, it isn't wrong either way. Make sure you
consider the NOTICE file though. Hopefully Marvin will nail this down one
way or the other in the next revision of the how-to.
HTH,
-Alex
[1] http://s.apache.org/qDa
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org