You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@marmotta.apache.org by Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org> on 2013/03/26 16:10:18 UTC
Updated License and Notice files
Dear all (especially mentors),
could you please have a look at the updated LICENSE and NOTICE files? I now
took a very different approach following more-or-less what Apache Geronimo
and Apache ODE are doing:
- the NOTICE file contains attribution for all 3rd party software bundled
in the respective distribution, a full copy of the 3rd party NOTICE file
(if it exists), and a pointer to its source code
- the LICENSE file contains a list of licenses (full-text) for reference
I think this complies fully with the requirements detailled in
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html . The only issue might be that it
is too extensive. However, most licenses anyways require some form of
attribution (especially also the Apache License), so it is easier to
include all of them in the same way. In those cases where this is not
strictly required, it is just fair towards the authors to mention them
anyways :)
The extensive NOTICE files will only be relevant in the binary
distributions, because they bundle many 3rd party libraries. The source
distribution NOTICE will only mention the Javascript and Java source files
that we include in our source tree.
The purpose of this approach is as follows:
if someone wants to use and redistribute one of the distributions,
regardless whether it is the source or one of the binary distributions, he
needs to be aware of the copyrights of bundled libraries. So he can go to
the NOTICE file and check there for any license that might conflict with
his intentions. The NOTICE file mentions the copyright holders and licenses
of all the bundled software, as well as pointers to the respective source
code repositories (to know where it comes from) and (in case it exists) the
content of the referred project's NOTICE file. In case he wants more
details about the license, its full text can be looked up in the LICENSE
file.
Could you please check the following distributions at
http://people.apache.org/~sschaffert/:
- apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-src.zip
- apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-webapp.zip
The -ldpath distribution is not yet updated (it will be mostly a subset of
the webapp). The -installer distribution is mostly the same as the -webapp,
but contains in addition Apache Tomcat and IzPack. I am currently
uploading, so it might be available only in a few minutes. :)
Greetings,
Sebastian
Re: Updated License and Notice files
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi Fabian,
thanks for the info. I think it is necessary to include notice for all
bundled 3rd party libraries because of the "Source Access" condition.
Either the source has to be included in the distribution, or the NOTICE
file needs to include a pointer for each library where the source code can
be found:
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#labeling
Greetings,
Sebastian
2013/3/26 Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>
> Hi,
>
> I did not have a look but I have seen many discussions about to
> extensive NOTICE files. So I would like to stress that point. The
> point is that this file is not meant to be a list of what is included.
> Is is meant to hold extra information that some licenses require. So
> this is only about legal aspects. This is not a file to give credit or
> to be fair to authors of included software.
>
> If you want to express credits or just list everything that is
> included, regardless of the license, to give people a complete
> overview, I would suggest to create just another file and name it
> INCLUDED-SOURCES or similar.
>
> So, just keep the NOTICE minimal and for legal aspects only. If your
> included sources or binaries require a lot of NOTICE because of their
> license, fine. Then the NOTICE just has to be extensive ;)
>
> Best,
> - Fabian
>
> 2013/3/26 Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org>:
> > Dear all (especially mentors),
> >
> > could you please have a look at the updated LICENSE and NOTICE files? I
> now
> > took a very different approach following more-or-less what Apache
> Geronimo
> > and Apache ODE are doing:
> > - the NOTICE file contains attribution for all 3rd party software bundled
> > in the respective distribution, a full copy of the 3rd party NOTICE file
> > (if it exists), and a pointer to its source code
> > - the LICENSE file contains a list of licenses (full-text) for reference
> >
> > I think this complies fully with the requirements detailled in
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html . The only issue might be that
> it
> > is too extensive. However, most licenses anyways require some form of
> > attribution (especially also the Apache License), so it is easier to
> > include all of them in the same way. In those cases where this is not
> > strictly required, it is just fair towards the authors to mention them
> > anyways :)
> >
> > The extensive NOTICE files will only be relevant in the binary
> > distributions, because they bundle many 3rd party libraries. The source
> > distribution NOTICE will only mention the Javascript and Java source
> files
> > that we include in our source tree.
> >
> > The purpose of this approach is as follows:
> >
> > if someone wants to use and redistribute one of the distributions,
> > regardless whether it is the source or one of the binary distributions,
> he
> > needs to be aware of the copyrights of bundled libraries. So he can go to
> > the NOTICE file and check there for any license that might conflict with
> > his intentions. The NOTICE file mentions the copyright holders and
> licenses
> > of all the bundled software, as well as pointers to the respective source
> > code repositories (to know where it comes from) and (in case it exists)
> the
> > content of the referred project's NOTICE file. In case he wants more
> > details about the license, its full text can be looked up in the LICENSE
> > file.
> >
> > Could you please check the following distributions at
> > http://people.apache.org/~sschaffert/:
> > - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-src.zip
> > - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-webapp.zip
> >
> > The -ldpath distribution is not yet updated (it will be mostly a subset
> of
> > the webapp). The -installer distribution is mostly the same as the
> -webapp,
> > but contains in addition Apache Tomcat and IzPack. I am currently
> > uploading, so it might be available only in a few minutes. :)
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Sebastian
>
>
>
> --
> Fabian
> http://twitter.com/fctwitt
>
Re: Updated License and Notice files
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
2013/3/28 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
> On 28/03/13 14:52, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> thanks for pointing this out. Comments inline below:
>>
>> 2013/3/28 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>>
>> Let's take a look at two examples; I think they need to handled
>>> differently.
>>>
>>> == D3.js
>>>
>>> This is minimized and has no license statement.
>>>
>>> We don't want to imply it's Apache contributed code
>>>
>>> I believe this needs a entry in NOTICE.
>>>
>>> (an alternative might be to put a LICENSE/NOTCIE file in that directory -
>>> not sure about that)
>>>
>>>
>> Neither am I. I am already sufficiently confused with legal issues :)
>>
>>
>>
>>> == Sgvizler.pack.js
>>>
>>> This has a copyright license in the file so this is is definitely under
>>> the
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/****licensing-howto.html#mod-****notice<http://www.apache.org/dev/**licensing-howto.html#mod-**notice>
>>> <http://www.apache.org/**dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-**notice<http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice>
>>> >
>>>
>>> "it suffices to leave those notices in their original locations."
>>>
>>>
>>> On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, the NOTICE needs to contain
>> pointers to the source code locations of 3rd party works:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/**3party.html#labeling<http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#labeling>
>>
>> (see Source Access).
>>
>> The Source Access is the main reason why these entries are in the NOTICE
>> file.
>>
>
> Marmotta uses falls under "Source Included"
>
> (having a non-NOTICE file is possible as well)
>
>
In the source distribution yes. But the binary distributions are actually
causing me more headache. :-)
Would you say it is acceptable to follow the SOLR example?
Sebastian
Re: Updated License and Notice files
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 28/03/13 14:52, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> thanks for pointing this out. Comments inline below:
>
> 2013/3/28 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>
>> Let's take a look at two examples; I think they need to handled
>> differently.
>>
>> == D3.js
>>
>> This is minimized and has no license statement.
>>
>> We don't want to imply it's Apache contributed code
>>
>> I believe this needs a entry in NOTICE.
>>
>> (an alternative might be to put a LICENSE/NOTCIE file in that directory -
>> not sure about that)
>>
>
> Neither am I. I am already sufficiently confused with legal issues :)
>
>
>>
>> == Sgvizler.pack.js
>>
>> This has a copyright license in the file so this is is definitely under the
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/**licensing-howto.html#mod-**notice<http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice>
>> "it suffices to leave those notices in their original locations."
>>
>>
> On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, the NOTICE needs to contain
> pointers to the source code locations of 3rd party works:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#labeling
>
> (see Source Access).
>
> The Source Access is the main reason why these entries are in the NOTICE
> file.
Marmotta uses falls under "Source Included"
(having a non-NOTICE file is possible as well)
>
> Sebastian
>
Re: Updated License and Notice files
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andy,
thanks for pointing this out. Comments inline below:
2013/3/28 Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
> Let's take a look at two examples; I think they need to handled
> differently.
>
> == D3.js
>
> This is minimized and has no license statement.
>
> We don't want to imply it's Apache contributed code
>
> I believe this needs a entry in NOTICE.
>
> (an alternative might be to put a LICENSE/NOTCIE file in that directory -
> not sure about that)
>
Neither am I. I am already sufficiently confused with legal issues :)
>
> == Sgvizler.pack.js
>
> This has a copyright license in the file so this is is definitely under the
> http://www.apache.org/dev/**licensing-howto.html#mod-**notice<http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice>
> "it suffices to leave those notices in their original locations."
>
>
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, the NOTICE needs to contain
pointers to the source code locations of 3rd party works:
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#labeling
(see Source Access).
The Source Access is the main reason why these entries are in the NOTICE
file.
Sebastian
Re: Updated License and Notice files
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
Let's take a look at two examples; I think they need to handled differently.
== D3.js
This is minimized and has no license statement.
We don't want to imply it's Apache contributed code
I believe this needs a entry in NOTICE.
(an alternative might be to put a LICENSE/NOTCIE file in that directory
- not sure about that)
== Sgvizler.pack.js
This has a copyright license in the file so this is is definitely under the
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
"it suffices to leave those notices in their original locations."
Andy
Re: Updated License and Notice files
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
OK, so let's go to try with the RC4 ;-)
On 27/03/13 13:08, Fabian Christ wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> 2013/3/26 Sebastian Schaffert<se...@gmail.com>:
>> Since this legal discussion is going on endlessly, noone can give a clear
>> guideline on how to treat the different licenses, and IANAL, I suggest to
>> keep the NOTICE files as they are. Just to be on the safe side.
>
> I agree. You are doing a great job of taking care of this! You have
> demonstrated that you are aware of the problem and the various
> opinions about it. If I understood our role as mentor and the
> incubator right, this is what the ASF wants to ensure. You are now in
> a situation where you have everything you need to make your decision
> and handle it the Marmotta way ;)
>
> I am also convinced that you are now in the situation where you can
> defend your approach against others as you have enough insight on the
> information that is available. And as you said - there seems to be no
> perfect guideline. Things are also changing over time and we are all
> learning.
>
> Well done,
> - Fabian
>
> P.S.: This license and notice problematic (and review work) is also
> something that I am a bit afraid of once we try to release a binary
> launcher of Stanbol that bundles everything we have ;)
> --
> Fabian
> http://twitter.com/fctwitt
--
Sergio Fernández
Re: Updated License and Notice files
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Sebastian,
2013/3/26 Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>:
> Since this legal discussion is going on endlessly, noone can give a clear
> guideline on how to treat the different licenses, and IANAL, I suggest to
> keep the NOTICE files as they are. Just to be on the safe side.
I agree. You are doing a great job of taking care of this! You have
demonstrated that you are aware of the problem and the various
opinions about it. If I understood our role as mentor and the
incubator right, this is what the ASF wants to ensure. You are now in
a situation where you have everything you need to make your decision
and handle it the Marmotta way ;)
I am also convinced that you are now in the situation where you can
defend your approach against others as you have enough insight on the
information that is available. And as you said - there seems to be no
perfect guideline. Things are also changing over time and we are all
learning.
Well done,
- Fabian
P.S.: This license and notice problematic (and review work) is also
something that I am a bit afraid of once we try to release a binary
launcher of Stanbol that bundles everything we have ;)
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt
Re: Updated License and Notice files
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi Fabian,
how can we treat this reasonably? For example, the Logback library
explicitly asks the licensee to choose:
http://logback.qos.ch/license.html
Jackson also explicitly requires the person who *redistributes* to choose
the license under which he does:
http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonDownload
I understand the requirement to have a minimized NOTICE file as "it should
be easy to understand what are the legal consequences". I think I managed
to do this by providing a properly structured and easy to read NOTICE file
for each of the different distributions, even though it might be longer
than necessary. If anyone needs information on how to redistribute, he will
not have to spend more than 15 minutes at most with this filek, and
overview is easy to get. On the other hand, I fear the legal consequences
of leaving something out that should have been there much more than the 15
minutes investment.
Our binary distributions contain a whole framework, which of course has
many dependencies to other libraries. In this sense, I think Apache
Marmotta is comparable to projects like Apache Geronimo, Apache SOLR, or
Apache ODE. All three have similar extensive NOTICE files, e.g.:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/dev/trunk/solr/NOTICE.txt
SOLR even maintains a directory with all notices and licenses:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/dev/trunk/solr/licenses/
On the other hand, I did not see the requirement for a "minimal" NOTICE in
any of the official ASF documentation. The only real requirement is the 4th
guiding principle (see http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html): "Users of
Apache products must be provided with all licensing terms applicable to any
part of the product and must be given prominent notice when any of those
terms include restrictions significantly different from the Apache License."
Since this legal discussion is going on endlessly, noone can give a clear
guideline on how to treat the different licenses, and IANAL, I suggest to
keep the NOTICE files as they are. Just to be on the safe side.
Greetings,
Sebastian
2013/3/26 Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>
> Hi,
>
> the statements about the elected licenses of dual-licensed stuff is
> not necessary and I think wrong at this place.
>
> See http://incubator.markmail.org/thread/r3rj5snd2tnb4nzw
>
> Best,
> - Fabian
>
> 2013/3/26 Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I did not have a look but I have seen many discussions about to
> > extensive NOTICE files. So I would like to stress that point. The
> > point is that this file is not meant to be a list of what is included.
> > Is is meant to hold extra information that some licenses require. So
> > this is only about legal aspects. This is not a file to give credit or
> > to be fair to authors of included software.
> >
> > If you want to express credits or just list everything that is
> > included, regardless of the license, to give people a complete
> > overview, I would suggest to create just another file and name it
> > INCLUDED-SOURCES or similar.
> >
> > So, just keep the NOTICE minimal and for legal aspects only. If your
> > included sources or binaries require a lot of NOTICE because of their
> > license, fine. Then the NOTICE just has to be extensive ;)
> >
> > Best,
> > - Fabian
> >
> > 2013/3/26 Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org>:
> >> Dear all (especially mentors),
> >>
> >> could you please have a look at the updated LICENSE and NOTICE files? I
> now
> >> took a very different approach following more-or-less what Apache
> Geronimo
> >> and Apache ODE are doing:
> >> - the NOTICE file contains attribution for all 3rd party software
> bundled
> >> in the respective distribution, a full copy of the 3rd party NOTICE file
> >> (if it exists), and a pointer to its source code
> >> - the LICENSE file contains a list of licenses (full-text) for reference
> >>
> >> I think this complies fully with the requirements detailled in
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html . The only issue might be that
> it
> >> is too extensive. However, most licenses anyways require some form of
> >> attribution (especially also the Apache License), so it is easier to
> >> include all of them in the same way. In those cases where this is not
> >> strictly required, it is just fair towards the authors to mention them
> >> anyways :)
> >>
> >> The extensive NOTICE files will only be relevant in the binary
> >> distributions, because they bundle many 3rd party libraries. The source
> >> distribution NOTICE will only mention the Javascript and Java source
> files
> >> that we include in our source tree.
> >>
> >> The purpose of this approach is as follows:
> >>
> >> if someone wants to use and redistribute one of the distributions,
> >> regardless whether it is the source or one of the binary distributions,
> he
> >> needs to be aware of the copyrights of bundled libraries. So he can go
> to
> >> the NOTICE file and check there for any license that might conflict with
> >> his intentions. The NOTICE file mentions the copyright holders and
> licenses
> >> of all the bundled software, as well as pointers to the respective
> source
> >> code repositories (to know where it comes from) and (in case it exists)
> the
> >> content of the referred project's NOTICE file. In case he wants more
> >> details about the license, its full text can be looked up in the LICENSE
> >> file.
> >>
> >> Could you please check the following distributions at
> >> http://people.apache.org/~sschaffert/:
> >> - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-src.zip
> >> - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-webapp.zip
> >>
> >> The -ldpath distribution is not yet updated (it will be mostly a subset
> of
> >> the webapp). The -installer distribution is mostly the same as the
> -webapp,
> >> but contains in addition Apache Tomcat and IzPack. I am currently
> >> uploading, so it might be available only in a few minutes. :)
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> Sebastian
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Fabian
> > http://twitter.com/fctwitt
>
>
>
> --
> Fabian
> http://twitter.com/fctwitt
>
Re: Updated License and Notice files
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
and as you see here [1] there might no be consensus at all on certain things.
[1] http://incubator.markmail.org/thread/b7cnqiweyre44pg5
2013/3/26 Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> the statements about the elected licenses of dual-licensed stuff is
> not necessary and I think wrong at this place.
>
> See http://incubator.markmail.org/thread/r3rj5snd2tnb4nzw
>
> Best,
> - Fabian
>
> 2013/3/26 Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I did not have a look but I have seen many discussions about to
>> extensive NOTICE files. So I would like to stress that point. The
>> point is that this file is not meant to be a list of what is included.
>> Is is meant to hold extra information that some licenses require. So
>> this is only about legal aspects. This is not a file to give credit or
>> to be fair to authors of included software.
>>
>> If you want to express credits or just list everything that is
>> included, regardless of the license, to give people a complete
>> overview, I would suggest to create just another file and name it
>> INCLUDED-SOURCES or similar.
>>
>> So, just keep the NOTICE minimal and for legal aspects only. If your
>> included sources or binaries require a lot of NOTICE because of their
>> license, fine. Then the NOTICE just has to be extensive ;)
>>
>> Best,
>> - Fabian
>>
>> 2013/3/26 Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org>:
>>> Dear all (especially mentors),
>>>
>>> could you please have a look at the updated LICENSE and NOTICE files? I now
>>> took a very different approach following more-or-less what Apache Geronimo
>>> and Apache ODE are doing:
>>> - the NOTICE file contains attribution for all 3rd party software bundled
>>> in the respective distribution, a full copy of the 3rd party NOTICE file
>>> (if it exists), and a pointer to its source code
>>> - the LICENSE file contains a list of licenses (full-text) for reference
>>>
>>> I think this complies fully with the requirements detailled in
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html . The only issue might be that it
>>> is too extensive. However, most licenses anyways require some form of
>>> attribution (especially also the Apache License), so it is easier to
>>> include all of them in the same way. In those cases where this is not
>>> strictly required, it is just fair towards the authors to mention them
>>> anyways :)
>>>
>>> The extensive NOTICE files will only be relevant in the binary
>>> distributions, because they bundle many 3rd party libraries. The source
>>> distribution NOTICE will only mention the Javascript and Java source files
>>> that we include in our source tree.
>>>
>>> The purpose of this approach is as follows:
>>>
>>> if someone wants to use and redistribute one of the distributions,
>>> regardless whether it is the source or one of the binary distributions, he
>>> needs to be aware of the copyrights of bundled libraries. So he can go to
>>> the NOTICE file and check there for any license that might conflict with
>>> his intentions. The NOTICE file mentions the copyright holders and licenses
>>> of all the bundled software, as well as pointers to the respective source
>>> code repositories (to know where it comes from) and (in case it exists) the
>>> content of the referred project's NOTICE file. In case he wants more
>>> details about the license, its full text can be looked up in the LICENSE
>>> file.
>>>
>>> Could you please check the following distributions at
>>> http://people.apache.org/~sschaffert/:
>>> - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-src.zip
>>> - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-webapp.zip
>>>
>>> The -ldpath distribution is not yet updated (it will be mostly a subset of
>>> the webapp). The -installer distribution is mostly the same as the -webapp,
>>> but contains in addition Apache Tomcat and IzPack. I am currently
>>> uploading, so it might be available only in a few minutes. :)
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Fabian
>> http://twitter.com/fctwitt
>
>
>
> --
> Fabian
> http://twitter.com/fctwitt
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt
Re: Updated License and Notice files
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
the statements about the elected licenses of dual-licensed stuff is
not necessary and I think wrong at this place.
See http://incubator.markmail.org/thread/r3rj5snd2tnb4nzw
Best,
- Fabian
2013/3/26 Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> I did not have a look but I have seen many discussions about to
> extensive NOTICE files. So I would like to stress that point. The
> point is that this file is not meant to be a list of what is included.
> Is is meant to hold extra information that some licenses require. So
> this is only about legal aspects. This is not a file to give credit or
> to be fair to authors of included software.
>
> If you want to express credits or just list everything that is
> included, regardless of the license, to give people a complete
> overview, I would suggest to create just another file and name it
> INCLUDED-SOURCES or similar.
>
> So, just keep the NOTICE minimal and for legal aspects only. If your
> included sources or binaries require a lot of NOTICE because of their
> license, fine. Then the NOTICE just has to be extensive ;)
>
> Best,
> - Fabian
>
> 2013/3/26 Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org>:
>> Dear all (especially mentors),
>>
>> could you please have a look at the updated LICENSE and NOTICE files? I now
>> took a very different approach following more-or-less what Apache Geronimo
>> and Apache ODE are doing:
>> - the NOTICE file contains attribution for all 3rd party software bundled
>> in the respective distribution, a full copy of the 3rd party NOTICE file
>> (if it exists), and a pointer to its source code
>> - the LICENSE file contains a list of licenses (full-text) for reference
>>
>> I think this complies fully with the requirements detailled in
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html . The only issue might be that it
>> is too extensive. However, most licenses anyways require some form of
>> attribution (especially also the Apache License), so it is easier to
>> include all of them in the same way. In those cases where this is not
>> strictly required, it is just fair towards the authors to mention them
>> anyways :)
>>
>> The extensive NOTICE files will only be relevant in the binary
>> distributions, because they bundle many 3rd party libraries. The source
>> distribution NOTICE will only mention the Javascript and Java source files
>> that we include in our source tree.
>>
>> The purpose of this approach is as follows:
>>
>> if someone wants to use and redistribute one of the distributions,
>> regardless whether it is the source or one of the binary distributions, he
>> needs to be aware of the copyrights of bundled libraries. So he can go to
>> the NOTICE file and check there for any license that might conflict with
>> his intentions. The NOTICE file mentions the copyright holders and licenses
>> of all the bundled software, as well as pointers to the respective source
>> code repositories (to know where it comes from) and (in case it exists) the
>> content of the referred project's NOTICE file. In case he wants more
>> details about the license, its full text can be looked up in the LICENSE
>> file.
>>
>> Could you please check the following distributions at
>> http://people.apache.org/~sschaffert/:
>> - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-src.zip
>> - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-webapp.zip
>>
>> The -ldpath distribution is not yet updated (it will be mostly a subset of
>> the webapp). The -installer distribution is mostly the same as the -webapp,
>> but contains in addition Apache Tomcat and IzPack. I am currently
>> uploading, so it might be available only in a few minutes. :)
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Sebastian
>
>
>
> --
> Fabian
> http://twitter.com/fctwitt
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt
Re: Updated License and Notice files
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
I did not have a look but I have seen many discussions about to
extensive NOTICE files. So I would like to stress that point. The
point is that this file is not meant to be a list of what is included.
Is is meant to hold extra information that some licenses require. So
this is only about legal aspects. This is not a file to give credit or
to be fair to authors of included software.
If you want to express credits or just list everything that is
included, regardless of the license, to give people a complete
overview, I would suggest to create just another file and name it
INCLUDED-SOURCES or similar.
So, just keep the NOTICE minimal and for legal aspects only. If your
included sources or binaries require a lot of NOTICE because of their
license, fine. Then the NOTICE just has to be extensive ;)
Best,
- Fabian
2013/3/26 Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org>:
> Dear all (especially mentors),
>
> could you please have a look at the updated LICENSE and NOTICE files? I now
> took a very different approach following more-or-less what Apache Geronimo
> and Apache ODE are doing:
> - the NOTICE file contains attribution for all 3rd party software bundled
> in the respective distribution, a full copy of the 3rd party NOTICE file
> (if it exists), and a pointer to its source code
> - the LICENSE file contains a list of licenses (full-text) for reference
>
> I think this complies fully with the requirements detailled in
> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html . The only issue might be that it
> is too extensive. However, most licenses anyways require some form of
> attribution (especially also the Apache License), so it is easier to
> include all of them in the same way. In those cases where this is not
> strictly required, it is just fair towards the authors to mention them
> anyways :)
>
> The extensive NOTICE files will only be relevant in the binary
> distributions, because they bundle many 3rd party libraries. The source
> distribution NOTICE will only mention the Javascript and Java source files
> that we include in our source tree.
>
> The purpose of this approach is as follows:
>
> if someone wants to use and redistribute one of the distributions,
> regardless whether it is the source or one of the binary distributions, he
> needs to be aware of the copyrights of bundled libraries. So he can go to
> the NOTICE file and check there for any license that might conflict with
> his intentions. The NOTICE file mentions the copyright holders and licenses
> of all the bundled software, as well as pointers to the respective source
> code repositories (to know where it comes from) and (in case it exists) the
> content of the referred project's NOTICE file. In case he wants more
> details about the license, its full text can be looked up in the LICENSE
> file.
>
> Could you please check the following distributions at
> http://people.apache.org/~sschaffert/:
> - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-src.zip
> - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-webapp.zip
>
> The -ldpath distribution is not yet updated (it will be mostly a subset of
> the webapp). The -installer distribution is mostly the same as the -webapp,
> but contains in addition Apache Tomcat and IzPack. I am currently
> uploading, so it might be available only in a few minutes. :)
>
> Greetings,
>
> Sebastian
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt