You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com> on 2008/04/02 19:25:18 UTC
License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the
release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
sebb wrote:
> On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 3rd party
>> >>>
>> >> > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party licences.
>> >> > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain copies of
>> >> > the AL for every ASF product.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other licenses?
>> >> These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF projects.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > See the last paragraph of:
>> >
>> > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>> >
>> >
>>
>> "or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the third-party
>> license" - which we in the NOTICE file.
>>
>>
>
> But they need to go in the LICENSE file, see:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>
Did you not read the next paragraph?
>> There is not a legal requirement here that it must be in the LICENSE
>> file itself - if so, please point me to the place in the license. This
>> is page is to provide "guidance" (see the first sentence), not be the
>> ultimate authority on what exactly is legally permissible for distributions.
>>
>> If you look at many other ASF projects in the incubator and outside,
>> you'll see that this is not an enforced policy - this is simply telling
>> developers one way to get started here.
>>
Can other people please chime in here?
I have never ever seen this enforced and I do not believe its a
requirement. Just to summarize - do we need to 1) include all the
licenses for all our dependencies in a single libary or can we 2) have
our top LICENSE file which is ASL and then have individual LICENSE files
for each library in the lib/ directory.
I think not allowing the second would be a HUGE mistake. It makes it
much clearer which license applies to which file.
Dan
--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Dan Diephouse
<da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >>> -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 3rd
> party
> > > >>>
> > > >> > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party
> licences.
> > > >> > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain copies
> of
> > > >> > the AL for every ASF product.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other
> licenses?
> > > >> These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF
> projects.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > See the last paragraph of:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > "or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the third-party
> > > license" - which we in the NOTICE file.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > But they need to go in the LICENSE file, see:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
i'm a little worried by this document: looks a little old to me. for example:
<blockquote cite=http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new''>
>Source files contributed to or developed as part of an ASF project
should begin with a copyright notice like
>
> Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation.
>or
> Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation.
>or
> Copyright 2002,2004 The Apache Software Foundation.
</blockquote>
this is wrong: apache cannot claim copyright on any particular file
but only to the collective work
AIUI modern legal information should be linked from http://www.apache.org/legal/
(this discussion probably needs to move to legal discuss)
<snip>
> > > There is not a legal requirement here that it must be in the LICENSE
> > > file itself - if so, please point me to the place in the license. This
> > > is page is to provide "guidance" (see the first sentence), not be the
> > > ultimate authority on what exactly is legally permissible for
> distributions.
> > >
> > > If you look at many other ASF projects in the incubator and outside,
> > > you'll see that this is not an enforced policy - this is simply telling
> > > developers one way to get started here.
<snip>
> I have never ever seen this enforced and I do not believe its a
> requirement. Just to summarize - do we need to 1) include all the licenses
> for all our dependencies in a single libary or can we 2) have our top
> LICENSE file which is ASL and then have individual LICENSE files for each
> library in the lib/ directory.
>
> I think not allowing the second would be a HUGE mistake. It makes it much
> clearer which license applies to which file.
IMHO the best possible practice would be indicate all licenses in the
top level LICENSE file and to include .LICENSE files for every
artifact included that does not contain an embedded one. but it's
possible to argue about release best practice forever...
AIUI policy is that a license must be included for every third party
artifact and the principle is that users must be able to easily
discover the license under which apache is distributed it. this may be
achieved by including within the LICENSE file licenses and references
to the files they apply to or by using individual LICENSE files
provided that they are easy for users to understand.
<legal-hat>
if policy is not clear then please raise the issue on the
legal-discuss list (probably prefix with [POLICY] or something so that
it's harder to ignore)
</legal-hat>
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 2, 2008, at 2:41 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> Kevan Miller wrote:
<snip>
> Each jar has a NOTICE file in META-INF/NOTICE. The source and binary
> distributions each have a NOTICE file in /.
>
> Where are the multiple NOTICE files?
I cracked open abdera-bundle-0.4.0-incubating.jar and found the
following files:
-rw-rw-rw- 1129 25-Mar-2008 09:26:52 META-INF/
LICENSE.htmlparser.txt
-rw-rw-rw- 11558 25-Mar-2008 09:26:52 META-INF/
LICENSE.serializer.txt
-rw-rw-rw- 164 25-Mar-2008 09:26:52 META-INF/
NOTICE.htmlparser.txt
-rw-rw-rw- 864 25-Mar-2008 09:26:52 META-INF/
NOTICE.serializer.txt
The single NOTICE file contains all of the m-r-r-p cruft (are you
removing this?) and does not contain the htmlparser and serializer
notice info. Do the jars contain htmlparser/serializer artifacts? I
would wonder if they need the notices...
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve
the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com>.
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>
>> Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>> sebb wrote:
>>>> On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >>> -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 3rd
>>>>> party
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >> > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party
>>>>> licences.
>>>>> >> > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain
>>>>> copies of
>>>>> >> > the AL for every ASF product.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other
>>>>> licenses?
>>>>> >> These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF
>>>>> projects.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > See the last paragraph of:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> "or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the third-party
>>>>> license" - which we in the NOTICE file.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But they need to go in the LICENSE file, see:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>>>>
>>> Did you not read the next paragraph?
>>>>> There is not a legal requirement here that it must be in the LICENSE
>>>>> file itself - if so, please point me to the place in the license.
>>>>> This
>>>>> is page is to provide "guidance" (see the first sentence), not be the
>>>>> ultimate authority on what exactly is legally permissible for
>>>>> distributions.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you look at many other ASF projects in the incubator and outside,
>>>>> you'll see that this is not an enforced policy - this is simply
>>>>> telling
>>>>> developers one way to get started here.
>>>>>
>>> Can other people please chime in here?
>>>
>>> I have never ever seen this enforced and I do not believe its a
>>> requirement. Just to summarize - do we need to 1) include all the
>>> licenses for all our dependencies in a single libary or can we 2)
>>> have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and then have individual
>>> LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
>>>
>>> I think not allowing the second would be a HUGE mistake. It makes it
>>> much clearer which license applies to which file.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>> I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
>>
>> Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in
>> a single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is
>> ASL and then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the
>> lib/ directory.
>
> I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In
> fact, the document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to
> the LICENSE file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license
> files. So, IMO, 2) is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
>
> I do think LICENSE information in jar files should be complete (i.e.
> jar files shouldn't reference information that would only be found in
> a full binary distribution). It looks like your jars are ok, in that
> respect.
>
> On the other hand, I believe there must be only one NOTICE file. I see
> multiple NOTICE files in your jars. I haven't downloaded the full
> distribution given the number of changes which seem to be occurring...
> Hard to keep track.
Each jar has a NOTICE file in META-INF/NOTICE. The source and binary
distributions each have a NOTICE file in /.
Where are the multiple NOTICE files?
Dan
--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:44 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:08 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in a
> > > > > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and
> > > > > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In fact, the
> > > > > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the LICENSE
> > > > > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files. So, IMO, 2)
> > > > > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
> > > > > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > AIUI this is not policy
> > > >
> > >
> > > My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
> > > formally documented.
> >
> >
> > where did you find the rule you based your understanding of policy on?
> >
>
> Please see the first message in this thread.
the only reference i could see is to
http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html. this is not a normative
document and is not policy. this document is old and CTR so this is
easy to fix to prevent future confusion. (apologies if i've missed a
policy document hopefully you'll jump in and correct me.)
> We should be making it as easy as possible for users to find the
> relevant licenses.
>
> That's presumably why the main license file is only called LICENSE or
> LICENSE.txt, not license.doc or readme.license etc, and the file is
> always in the top level directory (or META-INF for jars).
>
> Why should we force users to go looking around the directory structure
> to find all the relevant additional licenses?
i'm not arguing about best practice (i too personally prefer
everything in one LICENSE file) but about policy. AIUI policy does not
mandate that all licenses be included in one file. have i missed
normative documentation to the contrary?
there is a subjective element to judging releases in the incubator:
everyone acknowledges that. but it's important to be clearly right
when using policy to justify -1'ing a release. a subjective -1 is much
easier to accept than one based on a contentious reading of
non-normative documentation.
IMO the right way to promote best practice is by positive argument and
example. this means good documentation that positively promote good
practice. the incubator release document really needs a lot more work
before we can even then about trying to gain consensus on it's
contents. it'd be great if you'd write up something on the merits of
including all license information in one file that could be included.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 03/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:08 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in a
> > > > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and
> > > > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In fact, the
> > > > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the LICENSE
> > > > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files. So, IMO, 2)
> > > > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
> > > >
> > > > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
> > > > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
> > >
> > >
> > > AIUI this is not policy
> > >
> >
> > My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
> > formally documented.
>
>
> where did you find the rule you based your understanding of policy on?
>
Please see the first message in this thread.
We should be making it as easy as possible for users to find the
relevant licenses.
That's presumably why the main license file is only called LICENSE or
LICENSE.txt, not license.doc or readme.license etc, and the file is
always in the top level directory (or META-INF for jars).
Why should we force users to go looking around the directory structure
to find all the relevant additional licenses?
> - robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:08 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in a
> > > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and
> > > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In fact, the
> > > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the LICENSE
> > > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files. So, IMO, 2)
> > > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
> > >
> > > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
> > > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
> >
> >
> > AIUI this is not policy
> >
>
> My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
> formally documented.
where did you find the rule you based your understanding of policy on?
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Did this get resolved Dan?
We had a thread on this recently and there was definitely consensus
towards 2) being fine.
The only disagreement iirc between Sebb and I was whether it should be
in the LICENSE or whether it should be in a different file (the
README, or maybe a dedicated and structured THIRD_PARTY_README).
Hen
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Dan Diephouse
<da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
> Can someone clarify the below for us on general@incubator?
>
> sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our
>>> dependencies in a
>>> > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is
>>> ASL and
>>> > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/
>>> directory.
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In
>>> fact, the
>>> > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the
>>> LICENSE
>>> > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files.
>>> So, IMO, 2)
>>> > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
>>> >
>>> > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
>>> > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
>>>
>>>
>>> AIUI this is not policy
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
>> formally documented.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> MuleSource
> http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Dan Diephouse
<da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
> Can someone clarify the below for us on general@incubator?
probably needs more than someone (i'm on the legal committee) and more
like consensus
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Did this get resolved Dan?
We had a thread on this recently and there was definitely consensus
towards 2) being fine.
The only disagreement iirc between Sebb and I was whether it should be
in the LICENSE or whether it should be in a different file (the
README, or maybe a dedicated and structured THIRD_PARTY_README).
Hen
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Dan Diephouse
<da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
> Can someone clarify the below for us on general@incubator?
>
> sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our
>>> dependencies in a
>>> > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is
>>> ASL and
>>> > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/
>>> directory.
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In
>>> fact, the
>>> > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the
>>> LICENSE
>>> > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files.
>>> So, IMO, 2)
>>> > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
>>> >
>>> > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
>>> > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
>>>
>>>
>>> AIUI this is not policy
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
>> formally documented.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> MuleSource
> http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com>.
Can someone clarify the below for us on general@incubator?
sebb wrote:
> On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
>> > > >
>> > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in a
>> > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and
>> > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In fact, the
>> > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the LICENSE
>> > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files. So, IMO, 2)
>> > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
>> >
>> > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
>> > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
>>
>>
>> AIUI this is not policy
>>
>>
>
> My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
> formally documented.
>
>
--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve
the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by Santiago Gala <sg...@apache.org>.
El mié, 02-04-2008 a las 23:08 +0100, sebb escribió:
> On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in a
> > > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and
> > > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In fact, the
> > > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the LICENSE
> > > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files. So, IMO, 2)
> > > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
> > >
> > > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
> > > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
> >
> >
> > AIUI this is not policy
> >
>
> My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
> formally documented.
>
My understanding is as sebb's, and the rationale is that the LICENSE
file is where the different licenses governing components of the product
are documented, and the NOTICE file documents mandatory copyright
notices and attributions from subcomponents, such as they would appear
in an "About..." box.
The part requiring that the top LICENSE file documents the whole
licensing agreement was stated recently in legal-discuss because of a
question asked there, and it is common sense, as the most natural place
to look for a LICENSE is a top level LICENSE file, which is additionally
a universal convention in the world of software from like 20 years ago.
Regards
Santiago
> > - robert
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
--
Santiago Gala
http://memojo.com/~sgala/blog/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com>.
Can someone clarify the below for us on general@incubator?
sebb wrote:
> On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
>> > > >
>> > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in a
>> > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and
>> > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In fact, the
>> > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the LICENSE
>> > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files. So, IMO, 2)
>> > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
>> >
>> > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
>> > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
>>
>>
>> AIUI this is not policy
>>
>>
>
> My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
> formally documented.
>
>
--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:08 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in a
> > > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and
> > > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In fact, the
> > > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the LICENSE
> > > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files. So, IMO, 2)
> > > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
> > >
> > > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
> > > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
> >
> >
> > AIUI this is not policy
> >
>
> My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved
if you want a ruling on apache legal policy then you need to ask on
legal-discuss
> and formally documented.
if it isn't documented as policy, it's not policy ;-)
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
> > > >
> > > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in a
> > > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and
> > > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In fact, the
> > > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the LICENSE
> > > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files. So, IMO, 2)
> > > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
> >
> > 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
> > the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
>
>
> AIUI this is not policy
>
My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
formally documented.
> - robert
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
<snip>
> > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
> > >
> > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in a
> > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and
> > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In fact, the
> > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the LICENSE
> > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files. So, IMO, 2)
> > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
>
> 2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
> the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
AIUI this is not policy
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>
>
> > Dan Diephouse wrote:
> >
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >>> -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 3rd
> party
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party
> licences.
> > > > > >> > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain
> copies of
> > > > > >> > the AL for every ASF product.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other
> licenses?
> > > > > >> These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF
> projects.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the last paragraph of:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the third-party
> > > > > license" - which we in the NOTICE file.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > But they need to go in the LICENSE file, see:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Did you not read the next paragraph?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > There is not a legal requirement here that it must be in the LICENSE
> > > > > file itself - if so, please point me to the place in the license.
> This
> > > > > is page is to provide "guidance" (see the first sentence), not be
> the
> > > > > ultimate authority on what exactly is legally permissible for
> distributions.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you look at many other ASF projects in the incubator and
> outside,
> > > > > you'll see that this is not an enforced policy - this is simply
> telling
> > > > > developers one way to get started here.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > Can other people please chime in here?
> > >
> > > I have never ever seen this enforced and I do not believe its a
> requirement. Just to summarize - do we need to 1) include all the licenses
> for all our dependencies in a single libary or can we 2) have our top
> LICENSE file which is ASL and then have individual LICENSE files for each
> library in the lib/ directory.
> > >
> > > I think not allowing the second would be a HUGE mistake. It makes it
> much clearer which license applies to which file.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
> >
> > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in a
> single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and
> then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
> >
>
> I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In fact, the
> document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to the LICENSE
> file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license files. So, IMO, 2)
> is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where to find
the other license - i.e. it has pointers to the other licenses.
> I do think LICENSE information in jar files should be complete (i.e. jar
> files shouldn't reference information that would only be found in a full
> binary distribution). It looks like your jars are ok, in that respect.
>
> On the other hand, I believe there must be only one NOTICE file. I see
> multiple NOTICE files in your jars. I haven't downloaded the full
> distribution given the number of changes which seem to be occurring... Hard
> to keep track.
>
> --kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> Dan Diephouse wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>> On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>> -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the
>>>> 3rd party
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party
>>>> licences.
>>>> >> > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain
>>>> copies of
>>>> >> > the AL for every ASF product.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other
>>>> licenses?
>>>> >> These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF
>>>> projects.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > See the last paragraph of:
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> "or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the third-party
>>>> license" - which we in the NOTICE file.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But they need to go in the LICENSE file, see:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>>>
>> Did you not read the next paragraph?
>>>> There is not a legal requirement here that it must be in the
>>>> LICENSE
>>>> file itself - if so, please point me to the place in the license.
>>>> This
>>>> is page is to provide "guidance" (see the first sentence), not be
>>>> the
>>>> ultimate authority on what exactly is legally permissible for
>>>> distributions.
>>>>
>>>> If you look at many other ASF projects in the incubator and
>>>> outside,
>>>> you'll see that this is not an enforced policy - this is simply
>>>> telling
>>>> developers one way to get started here.
>>>>
>> Can other people please chime in here?
>>
>> I have never ever seen this enforced and I do not believe its a
>> requirement. Just to summarize - do we need to 1) include all the
>> licenses for all our dependencies in a single libary or can we 2)
>> have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and then have individual
>> LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
>>
>> I think not allowing the second would be a HUGE mistake. It makes
>> it much clearer which license applies to which file.
>>
>> Dan
>>
> I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
>
> Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies
> in a single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file
> which is ASL and then have individual LICENSE files for each library
> in the lib/ directory.
I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In
fact, the document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to
the LICENSE file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license
files. So, IMO, 2) is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
I do think LICENSE information in jar files should be complete (i.e.
jar files shouldn't reference information that would only be found in
a full binary distribution). It looks like your jars are ok, in that
respect.
On the other hand, I believe there must be only one NOTICE file. I see
multiple NOTICE files in your jars. I haven't downloaded the full
distribution given the number of changes which seem to be occurring...
Hard to keep track.
--kevan
Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve
the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com>.
Dan Diephouse wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>> On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >>> -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 3rd
>>> party
>>> >>>
>>> >> > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party
>>> licences.
>>> >> > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain
>>> copies of
>>> >> > the AL for every ASF product.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other
>>> licenses?
>>> >> These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF
>>> projects.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > See the last paragraph of:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> "or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the third-party
>>> license" - which we in the NOTICE file.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But they need to go in the LICENSE file, see:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>>
> Did you not read the next paragraph?
>>> There is not a legal requirement here that it must be in the LICENSE
>>> file itself - if so, please point me to the place in the license. This
>>> is page is to provide "guidance" (see the first sentence), not be the
>>> ultimate authority on what exactly is legally permissible for
>>> distributions.
>>>
>>> If you look at many other ASF projects in the incubator and outside,
>>> you'll see that this is not an enforced policy - this is simply
>>> telling
>>> developers one way to get started here.
>>>
> Can other people please chime in here?
>
> I have never ever seen this enforced and I do not believe its a
> requirement. Just to summarize - do we need to 1) include all the
> licenses for all our dependencies in a single libary or can we 2) have
> our top LICENSE file which is ASL and then have individual LICENSE
> files for each library in the lib/ directory.
>
> I think not allowing the second would be a HUGE mistake. It makes it
> much clearer which license applies to which file.
>
> Dan
>
I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies in a
single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file which is ASL
and then have individual LICENSE files for each library in the lib/
directory.
Dan
--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org