You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> on 2012/03/24 18:20:29 UTC
use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Hey all,
There seems to be a lack of clear policy around what goes in LICENSE
vs NOTICE. (ref: recent AOO thread on general@incubator)
My understanding is that *only* the ALv2 goes into LICENSE. That is
the license for the overall release. Then, according to ALv2 4(d),
other licenses and copyright notifications go into the NOTICE file.
However, looking at httpd's LICENSE/NOTICE (ref [1], and the direction
given to AOO), this is not the pattern being followed. Multiple
licenses are placed into LICENSE, and some random assortment of other
things are placed into NOTICE.
Can we get a clear statement of how to use LICENSE and NOTICE?
Thanks,
-g
[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Mar 27, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Sam, You missed the point.
>
> Here's what I wrote:
>> A recently discussed example of a "restricted" patent license
>> from Adobe is something that ought to be included in a NOTICE
>> file even though we have concluded that this doesn't affect
>> Apache's implementation of Adobe's claimed technology.
>
> I cited this as an example where we would want a NOTICE.
And Sam replied that it is not. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of an
example of where *we* want a notice, where *we* is the ASF. That is not
what the notice file is for. The NOTICE file is bound by our copyright
license.
> Whether Sebb is right or wrong in his infringement analysis is not relevant to this broader point. I was commenting on Roy's statement of the policy when I wrote this:
>
>> I'll suggest once again that it would also be helpful to our
>> licensees and customers to include all known notices about
>> potential or asserted patent claims in the NOTICE file.
>
> That is what this thread was/is about. This policy statement ought to be discussed.
It has been discussed. This idea is the moral equivalent of pointing a gun
at our user while saying that it is most likely unloaded. It simply isn't done.
Adobe has not asked for it to be done. The only company that has ever asked
for it to be done is Sun, and we not only refused to do so -- we exited the
entire Java community process because of it.
So, the answer to your suggestion is well known. Sam knows that answer.
He does not need to discuss it with you or anyone else because there is
already a long history behind it and a board precedence. We do not notify
our users that an unspecified patent might possibly be owned by some
third-party based on a theoretical reading of a patent license on a
specification that we don't even implement. If that third-party identifies
a specific patent AND indicates that the patent might apply to our product,
then we would include information about that in a README file (assuming
we didn't kill the product outright).
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Sam, You missed the point.
Here's what I wrote:
> A recently discussed example of a "restricted" patent license
> from Adobe is something that ought to be included in a NOTICE
> file even though we have concluded that this doesn't affect
> Apache's implementation of Adobe's claimed technology.
I cited this as an example where we would want a NOTICE. Whether Sebb is right or wrong in his infringement analysis is not relevant to this broader point. I was commenting on Roy's statement of the policy when I wrote this:
> I'll suggest once again that it would also be helpful to our
> licensees and customers to include all known notices about
> potential or asserted patent claims in the NOTICE file.
That is what this thread was/is about. This policy statement ought to be discussed.
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 7:11 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:
> > even though we have concluded that this doesn't affect Apache's
> > implementation of Adobe's claimed technology.
>
> This is not the conclusion reached by the chair of the PMC in question:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-
> discuss/201203.mbox/%3C987183469.31899.1332175719110.JavaMail.tomcat%40
> hel.zones.apache.org%3E
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> even though we have concluded that this doesn't affect Apache's
> implementation of Adobe's claimed technology.
This is not the conclusion reached by the chair of the PMC in question:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201203.mbox/%3C987183469.31899.1332175719110.JavaMail.tomcat%40hel.zones.apache.org%3E
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Roy Fielding was quoted as saying:
> > The short answer is that LICENSE contains the terms on
> > redistribution/use, whereas NOTICE contains the minimal
> > set of information required by those LICENSE terms in
> > the sense of advertising clauses and stuff that needs
> > to be displayed in an "About..." box.
I'll suggest once again that it would also be helpful to our licensees and
customers to include all known notices about potential or asserted patent
claims in the NOTICE file. A recently discussed example of a "restricted"
patent license from Adobe is something that ought to be included in a NOTICE
file even though we have concluded that this doesn't affect Apache's
implementation of Adobe's claimed technology.
That NOTICE doesn't hurt anyone and it may help someone downstream who
decides to veer into unlicensed terrain.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Cell: 707-478-8932
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Davis [mailto:paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 10:57 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
>
> Marvin,
>
> Excellent pointers. That's enough to satisfy my curiosity. Roy's
> comment seems like a pretty good rule of thumb:
>
> > The short answer is that LICENSE contains the terms on
> redistribution/use, whereas NOTICE contains the minimal > set of
> information required by those LICENSE terms in the sense of advertising
> clauses and stuff that needs to be > displayed in an "About..." box.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Marvin Humphrey
> <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Paul Davis
> <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Is there a good list of common examples for requires third-party
> NOTICE
> >> sections?
> >
> > See <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-62>. The common
> examples are
> > apparently 4-clause BSD and Apache License 1.1.
> >
> >> [1] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-
> notices
> >
> > There was discussion of adding examples to that FAQ text, which to me
> seems
> > like it would have helped a lot -- but that was apparently nixed in
> order to
> > keep things "simple".
> >
> > I found this comment from Roy illuminating as it speaks to the
> motivation
> > behind having a NOTICE file in the first place:
> >
> > The short answer is that LICENSE contains the terms on
> redistribution/use,
> > whereas NOTICE contains the minimal set of information required by
> those
> > LICENSE terms in the sense of advertising clauses and stuff that
> needs to be
> > displayed in an "About..." box.
> >
> > The historical reason why we have them separated is because GPL
> requires the
> > preservation of notices even when it subsumes all other licenses,
> thus
> > preserving our advertising clause in a way that would otherwise
> have been
> > incompatible with the GPL.
> >
> > I almost feel like I understand NOTICE after reading that. :P
> >
> > After reading LEGAL-62, LEGAL-59 and the surrounding discussion, I've
> adopted
> > the following logic for deciding whether a chunk of IP requires
> > putting something
> > into NOTICE:
> >
> > IF a copyright notification has been relocated to NOTICE
> > THEN that relocated copyright notification belongs in NOTICE.
> >
> > IF the license of a bundled dependency is 4-clause BSD or Apache
> 1.x,
> > THEN something belongs in NOTICE.
> > ELSE IF the license contains some sort of advertising clause
> > THEN something belongs in NOTICE.
> > ELSE the license does not require putting anything into NOTICE.
> >
> > After applying that logic, not much ends up in the typical NOTICE
> file.
> >
> > Regardless, IMO the required content of the NOTICE file is so opaque
> and
> > confusing that it's guaranteed people will get it wrong much of the
> time.
> >
> > Marvin Humphrey
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
Marvin,
Excellent pointers. That's enough to satisfy my curiosity. Roy's
comment seems like a pretty good rule of thumb:
> The short answer is that LICENSE contains the terms on redistribution/use, whereas NOTICE contains the minimal > set of information required by those LICENSE terms in the sense of advertising clauses and stuff that needs to be > displayed in an "About..." box.
Thanks,
Paul
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there a good list of common examples for requires third-party NOTICE
>> sections?
>
> See <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-62>. The common examples are
> apparently 4-clause BSD and Apache License 1.1.
>
>> [1] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>
> There was discussion of adding examples to that FAQ text, which to me seems
> like it would have helped a lot -- but that was apparently nixed in order to
> keep things "simple".
>
> I found this comment from Roy illuminating as it speaks to the motivation
> behind having a NOTICE file in the first place:
>
> The short answer is that LICENSE contains the terms on redistribution/use,
> whereas NOTICE contains the minimal set of information required by those
> LICENSE terms in the sense of advertising clauses and stuff that needs to be
> displayed in an "About..." box.
>
> The historical reason why we have them separated is because GPL requires the
> preservation of notices even when it subsumes all other licenses, thus
> preserving our advertising clause in a way that would otherwise have been
> incompatible with the GPL.
>
> I almost feel like I understand NOTICE after reading that. :P
>
> After reading LEGAL-62, LEGAL-59 and the surrounding discussion, I've adopted
> the following logic for deciding whether a chunk of IP requires
> putting something
> into NOTICE:
>
> IF a copyright notification has been relocated to NOTICE
> THEN that relocated copyright notification belongs in NOTICE.
>
> IF the license of a bundled dependency is 4-clause BSD or Apache 1.x,
> THEN something belongs in NOTICE.
> ELSE IF the license contains some sort of advertising clause
> THEN something belongs in NOTICE.
> ELSE the license does not require putting anything into NOTICE.
>
> After applying that logic, not much ends up in the typical NOTICE file.
>
> Regardless, IMO the required content of the NOTICE file is so opaque and
> confusing that it's guaranteed people will get it wrong much of the time.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a good list of common examples for requires third-party NOTICE
> sections?
See <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-62>. The common examples are
apparently 4-clause BSD and Apache License 1.1.
> [1] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
There was discussion of adding examples to that FAQ text, which to me seems
like it would have helped a lot -- but that was apparently nixed in order to
keep things "simple".
I found this comment from Roy illuminating as it speaks to the motivation
behind having a NOTICE file in the first place:
The short answer is that LICENSE contains the terms on redistribution/use,
whereas NOTICE contains the minimal set of information required by those
LICENSE terms in the sense of advertising clauses and stuff that needs to be
displayed in an "About..." box.
The historical reason why we have them separated is because GPL requires the
preservation of notices even when it subsumes all other licenses, thus
preserving our advertising clause in a way that would otherwise have been
incompatible with the GPL.
I almost feel like I understand NOTICE after reading that. :P
After reading LEGAL-62, LEGAL-59 and the surrounding discussion, I've adopted
the following logic for deciding whether a chunk of IP requires
putting something
into NOTICE:
IF a copyright notification has been relocated to NOTICE
THEN that relocated copyright notification belongs in NOTICE.
IF the license of a bundled dependency is 4-clause BSD or Apache 1.x,
THEN something belongs in NOTICE.
ELSE IF the license contains some sort of advertising clause
THEN something belongs in NOTICE.
ELSE the license does not require putting anything into NOTICE.
After applying that logic, not much ends up in the typical NOTICE file.
Regardless, IMO the required content of the NOTICE file is so opaque and
confusing that it's guaranteed people will get it wrong much of the time.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
Reading through those links a bit I noticed this line at [1]:
"For some licenses some additional notice is required. In many cases,
this will be included within the dependent artifact."
Looking at CouchDB's notice it seems reasonable but I suddenly realize
I have no idea what additional notices might be required. Is there a
good list of common examples for requires third-party NOTICE sections?
[1] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah! Thanks for the pointer. That clears it up for me.
>
> On Mar 25, 2012 9:08 PM, "sebb" <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 24 March 2012 17:20, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > There seems to be a lack of clear policy around what goes in LICENSE
>> > vs NOTICE. (ref: recent AOO thread on general@incubator)
>> >
>> > My understanding is that *only* the ALv2 goes into LICENSE. That is
>> > the license for the overall release. Then, according to ALv2 4(d),
>> > other licenses and copyright notifications go into the NOTICE file.
>> >
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> That's not my understanding at all.
>>
>> See [1] et seq
>>
>>
>> > However, looking at httpd's LICENSE/NOTICE (ref [1], and the direction
>> > given to AOO), this is not the pattern being followed. Multiple
>> > licenses are placed into LICENSE, and some random assortment of other
>> > things are placed into NOTICE.
>>
>> The "random assortment" is "mandatory information required by the
>> product's software licenses."
>>
>> > Can we get a clear statement of how to use LICENSE and NOTICE?
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#notice-content
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> > -g
>> >
>> > [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Ah! Thanks for the pointer. That clears it up for me.
On Mar 25, 2012 9:08 PM, "sebb" <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 March 2012 17:20, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > There seems to be a lack of clear policy around what goes in LICENSE
> > vs NOTICE. (ref: recent AOO thread on general@incubator)
> >
> > My understanding is that *only* the ALv2 goes into LICENSE. That is
> > the license for the overall release. Then, according to ALv2 4(d),
> > other licenses and copyright notifications go into the NOTICE file.
> >
>
> Huh?
>
> That's not my understanding at all.
>
> See [1] et seq
>
>
> > However, looking at httpd's LICENSE/NOTICE (ref [1], and the direction
> > given to AOO), this is not the pattern being followed. Multiple
> > licenses are placed into LICENSE, and some random assortment of other
> > things are placed into NOTICE.
>
> The "random assortment" is "mandatory information required by the
> product's software licenses."
>
> > Can we get a clear statement of how to use LICENSE and NOTICE?
>
> How about:
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#notice-content
>
> > Thanks,
> > -g
> >
> > [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 24 March 2012 17:20, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> There seems to be a lack of clear policy around what goes in LICENSE
> vs NOTICE. (ref: recent AOO thread on general@incubator)
>
> My understanding is that *only* the ALv2 goes into LICENSE. That is
> the license for the overall release. Then, according to ALv2 4(d),
> other licenses and copyright notifications go into the NOTICE file.
>
Huh?
That's not my understanding at all.
See [1] et seq
> However, looking at httpd's LICENSE/NOTICE (ref [1], and the direction
> given to AOO), this is not the pattern being followed. Multiple
> licenses are placed into LICENSE, and some random assortment of other
> things are placed into NOTICE.
The "random assortment" is "mandatory information required by the
product's software licenses."
> Can we get a clear statement of how to use LICENSE and NOTICE?
How about:
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#notice-content
> Thanks,
> -g
>
> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org