Re: Section 4.2, and patch build workflows

[Nick Burch <ni...@apache.org>]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> * "You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
>>> �that You changed the files"
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting question. Normally I would include the patch file and
>>> modify the NOTICE to indicate a change was made. I think AL 2.0 has
>>> already crossed the bridge of whether a file is independent of its
>>> NOTICE (ie it isn't). The modified file has a prominent notice that
>>> links to the license and that then points to the NOTICE file which
>>> explains the change.
>>
>> If you're a lawyer (cause I'm not) I'm about to make a nonsense, but still,
>>
>> The plain English sense of 'cause any ... files to carry prominent
>> notices' �-- to me -- requires a marking in the file. If it wanted
>> your interpretation, I'd think that it had to say, 'cause ... to carry
>> prominent notices or to be accompanied by a NOTICE file ... containing
>> ...'
>
> Every file points to the NOTICE file (via its LICENSE) in a prominent
> way. The weakness in my suggestion is (imo) not in the prominent part,
> but in the LICENSE itself which only indicates NOTICE files being for
> attribution/copyright indication. I think that we can consider
> identifying the modifications to be an area of attribution.
>
> The technical issue with my suggestion is that someone copying a file
> may lose the indication that a change has occurred. They'll also lose
> any necessary copyright indication/attribution in the NOTICE file as
> well, which I think is more important. By putting this in the NOTICE
> file we put both of the items they're meant to identify when re-using,
> while maintaining a sane technical solution.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Personally it seems like a fairly 
simple, workable idea to me

Nick

Re: Section 4.2, and patch build workflows

[Gilles Scokart <gs...@gmail.com>]

I was thinking the NOTICE file should be kept small, like something
that could be showed in a "About" popup.

Also, putting all the external contributions into a the NOTICE file is
something much stronger than putting it in the source file.  Indeed
AL2 imposes to keep the NOTICE file in any redistribution (not the
source file).

[1] is an interresting thread that illustrates the usage of the NOTICE file.

[1] http://markmail.org/thread/xdywc5lhrmlwxexi

Gilles Scokart



On 4 July 2011 01:04, Nick Burch <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> * "You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
>>>>  that You changed the files"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting question. Normally I would include the patch file and
>>>> modify the NOTICE to indicate a change was made. I think AL 2.0 has
>>>> already crossed the bridge of whether a file is independent of its
>>>> NOTICE (ie it isn't). The modified file has a prominent notice that
>>>> links to the license and that then points to the NOTICE file which
>>>> explains the change.
>>>
>>> If you're a lawyer (cause I'm not) I'm about to make a nonsense, but
>>> still,
>>>
>>> The plain English sense of 'cause any ... files to carry prominent
>>> notices'  -- to me -- requires a marking in the file. If it wanted
>>> your interpretation, I'd think that it had to say, 'cause ... to carry
>>> prominent notices or to be accompanied by a NOTICE file ... containing
>>> ...'
>>
>> Every file points to the NOTICE file (via its LICENSE) in a prominent
>> way. The weakness in my suggestion is (imo) not in the prominent part,
>> but in the LICENSE itself which only indicates NOTICE files being for
>> attribution/copyright indication. I think that we can consider
>> identifying the modifications to be an area of attribution.
>>
>> The technical issue with my suggestion is that someone copying a file
>> may lose the indication that a change has occurred. They'll also lose
>> any necessary copyright indication/attribution in the NOTICE file as
>> well, which I think is more important. By putting this in the NOTICE
>> file we put both of the items they're meant to identify when re-using,
>> while maintaining a sane technical solution.
>
> Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Personally it seems like a fairly
> simple, workable idea to me
>
> Nick
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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