You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> on 2013/11/21 15:14:04 UTC
Early review of DUCC pre-release - Notice file in bin distr
This file contains incorrect statements such as:
This product includes software, Spring Framework, developed
at the Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
(I don't think Spring was an Apache project...)
See http://apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#overview-of-files where it says,
under Bundling Other ASF Products, that
It is not necessary to duplicate the line "This product includes software
developed at the Apache Software Foundation...", though the ASF copyright line
and any other portions of NOTICE must be considered for propagation.
-Marshall
Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - Notice file in bin distr
Posted by Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com>.
I've reviewed DUCC's NOTICE file and checked each image relevant Creative
Commons Licenses.
There are two images from public domain so I am not sure if these should
stay or not.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/22/2013 1:45 PM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote:
> > Sorry, correction. I did not mean to say:
> > "I thought I had to add attribution information to LICENSE file for every
> > image used in DUCC."
> >
> > Instead
> >
> > "I thought I had to add attribution information to NOTICE for every
> image
> > used in DUCC."
> The requirement for attribution varies from license to license. For
> instance,
> the creative commons cc by 3.0 has an attribution clause. The creative
> commons
> cc 0 doesn't.
>
> Some attributions are satisfied by the particular license. Others have a
> "general" license, with the required attribution going into the notice
> file.
>
> So, the answer is, it depends ... ;-)
>
> -Marshall
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, Spring notice was a cut and paste bug.
> >>
> >> I will remove all "This product includes ..."
> >>
> >> What about the images? Should I yank those too or change the wording to
> >> something else?
> >> I thought I had to add attribution information to LICENSE file for every
> >> image used in DUCC.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This file contains incorrect statements such as:
> >>>
> >>> This product includes software, Spring Framework, developed
> >>> at the Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> >>>
> >>> (I don't think Spring was an Apache project...)
> >>>
> >>> See http://apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#overview-of-files where
> >>> it says,
> >>> under Bundling Other ASF Products, that
> >>>
> >>> It is not necessary to duplicate the line "This product includes
> software
> >>> developed at the Apache Software Foundation...", though the ASF
> copyright
> >>> line
> >>> and any other portions of NOTICE must be considered for propagation.
> >>>
> >>> -Marshall
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - Notice file in bin distr
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 11/22/2013 1:45 PM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote:
> Sorry, correction. I did not mean to say:
> "I thought I had to add attribution information to LICENSE file for every
> image used in DUCC."
>
> Instead
>
> "I thought I had to add attribution information to NOTICE for every image
> used in DUCC."
The requirement for attribution varies from license to license. For instance,
the creative commons cc by 3.0 has an attribution clause. The creative commons
cc 0 doesn't.
Some attributions are satisfied by the particular license. Others have a
"general" license, with the required attribution going into the notice file.
So, the answer is, it depends ... ;-)
-Marshall
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, Spring notice was a cut and paste bug.
>>
>> I will remove all "This product includes ..."
>>
>> What about the images? Should I yank those too or change the wording to
>> something else?
>> I thought I had to add attribution information to LICENSE file for every
>> image used in DUCC.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This file contains incorrect statements such as:
>>>
>>> This product includes software, Spring Framework, developed
>>> at the Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>>
>>> (I don't think Spring was an Apache project...)
>>>
>>> See http://apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#overview-of-files where
>>> it says,
>>> under Bundling Other ASF Products, that
>>>
>>> It is not necessary to duplicate the line "This product includes software
>>> developed at the Apache Software Foundation...", though the ASF copyright
>>> line
>>> and any other portions of NOTICE must be considered for propagation.
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>
>>
Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - Notice file in bin distr
Posted by Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, correction. I did not mean to say:
"I thought I had to add attribution information to LICENSE file for every
image used in DUCC."
Instead
"I thought I had to add attribution information to NOTICE for every image
used in DUCC."
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, Spring notice was a cut and paste bug.
>
> I will remove all "This product includes ..."
>
> What about the images? Should I yank those too or change the wording to
> something else?
> I thought I had to add attribution information to LICENSE file for every
> image used in DUCC.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
>> This file contains incorrect statements such as:
>>
>> This product includes software, Spring Framework, developed
>> at the Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>
>> (I don't think Spring was an Apache project...)
>>
>> See http://apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#overview-of-files where
>> it says,
>> under Bundling Other ASF Products, that
>>
>> It is not necessary to duplicate the line "This product includes software
>> developed at the Apache Software Foundation...", though the ASF copyright
>> line
>> and any other portions of NOTICE must be considered for propagation.
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>
>
Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - Notice file in bin distr
Posted by Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com>.
Yes, Spring notice was a cut and paste bug.
I will remove all "This product includes ..."
What about the images? Should I yank those too or change the wording to
something else?
I thought I had to add attribution information to LICENSE file for every
image used in DUCC.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> This file contains incorrect statements such as:
>
> This product includes software, Spring Framework, developed
> at the Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> (I don't think Spring was an Apache project...)
>
> See http://apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#overview-of-files where it
> says,
> under Bundling Other ASF Products, that
>
> It is not necessary to duplicate the line "This product includes software
> developed at the Apache Software Foundation...", though the ASF copyright
> line
> and any other portions of NOTICE must be considered for propagation.
>
> -Marshall
>