You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com> on 2012/03/23 11:57:05 UTC
[RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Hi,
I will have a look at the NOTICE and the LICENSE file - both located in main/ -,
if there is something missing.
Pedro already did a great job here - I am more or less expecting that everything
is already covered in these files.
If there is any input regarding its content, please provide the information here
- Thanks in advance.
I will mainly assure that the notices and licenses of the current work regarding
the RAT scan which results in certain entries in the rat-excludes are also
covered in the NOTICE and LICENSE file.
Help is very welcome here.
Thus again, if you know of the one or the other 3rd party
component/library/code, drop me a note. I will check, if these are reflected in
these files.
Thanks in advance, Oliver.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Andrew,
On 27.03.2012 17:36, Andrew Rist wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>> One other thing in the NOTICE file, which is talked about in [3] above.
>> That is relocated copyright notices. For example, with the ODF Toolkit,
>> many of original files had an IBM copyright statement in them. We removed
>> these notices for the individual files and put a single line in the NOTICE
>> reading, "Portions copyright IBM, 2009-2011. All rights reserved." I
>> think the equivalent here would be the files that Andrew updated from
>> Oracle. If Oracle wants a similar statement it would go in the NOTICE
>> file.
> That is my intention. (after we get the 1400+ that don't pass RAT scan down to 0)
> A.
I have finished my rework on the NOTICE file.
I have included a placeholder for Oracle's copyright notice.
Feel free to fill it.
Best regards, Oliver.
>> [snip]
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
On 3/27/2012 8:01 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann<
> orwittmann@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Thx for the input so far.
>>
>> My work stopped, because of the ongoing discussion on legal-discuss. Greg
>> Stein has started at legal-discuss a corresponding thread, named "use of
>> LICENSE and NOTICE". To be sure how to proceed I will send the following
>> information to legal-discuss:
>>
>> List of links on apache.org with information regarding the content of the
>> LICENSE file and the NOTICE file which I have found:
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/**src-headers.html#notice<http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice>
>> [2] http://apache.org/legal/**resolved.html#required-third-**party-notices<http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices>
>> [3] http://www.apache.org/legal/**src-headers.html#header-**
>> existingcopyright<http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright>
>> [4] http://www.apache.org/**licenses/example-NOTICE.txt<http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt>
>> [5] http://incubator.apache.org/**guides/releasemanagement.html#**
>> best-practice-license<http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license>
>> [6] http://incubator.apache.org/**guides/releasemanagement.html#**
>> best-practice-notice<http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-notice>
>>
>> My intepretation of this information and the information given in the
>> thread at legal-discuss is the following:
>> - Content of LICENSE file - general conclusion:
>> -- Apache license at the top
>> -- Licenses of all 3rd party components included in the specific package
>> of a release inclusive a clear identification of the files to whose the
>> license apply.
>>
>> - Content of NOTICE file - general conclusion:
>> -- Standard copyright notice as given at [1] at the top
>> -- Notices which are required by 3rd party component licenses which should
>> be quite rare.
>>
>>
> One other thing in the NOTICE file, which is talked about in [3] above.
> That is relocated copyright notices. For example, with the ODF Toolkit,
> many of original files had an IBM copyright statement in them. We removed
> these notices for the individual files and put a single line in the NOTICE
> reading, "Portions copyright IBM, 2009-2011. All rights reserved." I
> think the equivalent here would be the files that Andrew updated from
> Oracle. If Oracle wants a similar statement it would go in the NOTICE
> file.
That is my intention. (after we get the 1400+ that don't pass RAT scan
down to 0)
A.
>
>> - Further conclusions by orw for the Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
>> project:
>> -- We (AOO incubating) are planning to release a source package and binary
>> packages. The binary package will include certain category-b licensed
>> components. Thus, I assume that we need for each package an own LICENSE
>> file and an own NOTICE file.
>> -- The LICENSE file and the NOTICE file for the source package will cover
>> the licenses of our source files.
>> -- The LICENSE files and the NOTICE files for the binary package will
>> cover additionally all licenses from the enabled category-b licensed
>> components.
>>
>> If there are no objections I will continue my work regarding the above
>> interpretations.
>>
>>
>> Best regards, Oliver.
>>
>>
>> On 23.03.2012 11:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I will have a look at the NOTICE and the LICENSE file - both located in
>>> main/ -,
>>> if there is something missing.
>>>
>>> Pedro already did a great job here - I am more or less expecting that
>>> everything
>>> is already covered in these files.
>>>
>>> If there is any input regarding its content, please provide the
>>> information here
>>> - Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> I will mainly assure that the notices and licenses of the current work
>>> regarding
>>> the RAT scan which results in certain entries in the rat-excludes are also
>>> covered in the NOTICE and LICENSE file.
>>>
>>> Help is very welcome here.
>>> Thus again, if you know of the one or the other 3rd party
>>> component/library/code, drop me a note. I will check, if these are
>>> reflected in
>>> these files.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance, Oliver.
>>>
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
orwittmann@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thx for the input so far.
>
> My work stopped, because of the ongoing discussion on legal-discuss. Greg
> Stein has started at legal-discuss a corresponding thread, named "use of
> LICENSE and NOTICE". To be sure how to proceed I will send the following
> information to legal-discuss:
>
> List of links on apache.org with information regarding the content of the
> LICENSE file and the NOTICE file which I have found:
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/**src-headers.html#notice<http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice>
> [2] http://apache.org/legal/**resolved.html#required-third-**party-notices<http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices>
> [3] http://www.apache.org/legal/**src-headers.html#header-**
> existingcopyright<http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright>
> [4] http://www.apache.org/**licenses/example-NOTICE.txt<http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt>
> [5] http://incubator.apache.org/**guides/releasemanagement.html#**
> best-practice-license<http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license>
> [6] http://incubator.apache.org/**guides/releasemanagement.html#**
> best-practice-notice<http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-notice>
>
> My intepretation of this information and the information given in the
> thread at legal-discuss is the following:
> - Content of LICENSE file - general conclusion:
> -- Apache license at the top
> -- Licenses of all 3rd party components included in the specific package
> of a release inclusive a clear identification of the files to whose the
> license apply.
>
> - Content of NOTICE file - general conclusion:
> -- Standard copyright notice as given at [1] at the top
> -- Notices which are required by 3rd party component licenses which should
> be quite rare.
>
>
One other thing in the NOTICE file, which is talked about in [3] above.
That is relocated copyright notices. For example, with the ODF Toolkit,
many of original files had an IBM copyright statement in them. We removed
these notices for the individual files and put a single line in the NOTICE
reading, "Portions copyright IBM, 2009-2011. All rights reserved." I
think the equivalent here would be the files that Andrew updated from
Oracle. If Oracle wants a similar statement it would go in the NOTICE
file.
> - Further conclusions by orw for the Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
> project:
> -- We (AOO incubating) are planning to release a source package and binary
> packages. The binary package will include certain category-b licensed
> components. Thus, I assume that we need for each package an own LICENSE
> file and an own NOTICE file.
> -- The LICENSE file and the NOTICE file for the source package will cover
> the licenses of our source files.
> -- The LICENSE files and the NOTICE files for the binary package will
> cover additionally all licenses from the enabled category-b licensed
> components.
>
> If there are no objections I will continue my work regarding the above
> interpretations.
>
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>
>
> On 23.03.2012 11:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I will have a look at the NOTICE and the LICENSE file - both located in
>> main/ -,
>> if there is something missing.
>>
>> Pedro already did a great job here - I am more or less expecting that
>> everything
>> is already covered in these files.
>>
>> If there is any input regarding its content, please provide the
>> information here
>> - Thanks in advance.
>>
>> I will mainly assure that the notices and licenses of the current work
>> regarding
>> the RAT scan which results in certain entries in the rat-excludes are also
>> covered in the NOTICE and LICENSE file.
>>
>> Help is very welcome here.
>> Thus again, if you know of the one or the other 3rd party
>> component/library/code, drop me a note. I will check, if these are
>> reflected in
>> these files.
>>
>> Thanks in advance, Oliver.
>>
>
RE: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
The reason why notices must be made and replicas of licenses are made available is simpler than that. There are licenses that *require* notice and attribution and conditions be carried forward into derivative works and other situations where the licensed material is carried forward.
In addition, copyright notices generally cannot be expunged except by permission/action of the copyright holder (and it doesn't, generally, by itself do anything to remove fact of the copyright).
- Dennis
SIDEBAR
Apart from that, I share the discomfort about the prospect of being careless with handling of GPLd material. My concern is that folks are casual about slapping GPL notices over works. I see enough misunderstanding about how copyright works and what a copyright is limited to that it takes something to know whether such work has been GPLd carelessly and perhaps improperly. (A common myth and use of the term "relicensing" is also a clue.)
I believe the ASF view is that one must rely on the attestations of contributors and that will be sufficient to limit any liability/responsibility if there is a disturbance. I think that is quite accurate as a practical matter. With regard to relying on third-party works (such as some GPLd artifact), I think there is need for greater care and the ASF has guideline about that. Of course, the handling of notices and licenses comes *after* it is concluded that an use is safe and that it is done in a way where the users of ASF artifacts can safely rely on that.
-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 06:55
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
On 03/29/12 06:19, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> On 28.03.2012 17:23, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> Hello;
>>
>> Excuse me I don't really want to be involved in this discussion.
>> I am simply tired of looking those files!
>>
>
> Thx again for your work on these files.
>
>> However.. just my $0.02.
>>
>> On 03/28/12 04:18, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> ...
>>> There is already feedback on legal-discuss regarding my post.
>>> A short summary:
>>> - It seems that LICENSE file and NOTICE file of integrated Apache
>>> projects as
>>> 3rd party components need to be considered. E.g. Apache APR
>>> - It seems that notices of 3rd party components which are licensed
>>> under the
>>> Apache license need to be considered. E.g. serf
>>> - For our planned binary packages the bundled dictionary extensions
>>> need to be
>>> considered.
>>>
>>> If you are interested in further details you may have a look at
>>> http://markmail.org/thread/ze722s7ovb5pjdnn
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The thread and particualrly Marvin Humphrey's first reply are very
>> interesting
>> but I don't agree with your summary.
>>
>> It is clear to me that the NOTICE file has only to purposes:
>>
>> 1. To cover for the advertisement clause the classic BSD licenses and
>> ASL (1-1.1).
>
> I am not an expert here. Thus, let me ask some questions to be sure:
> If the advertising clause is included in the use BSD license then we
> have cover it in the NOTICE file. Right?
> The advertising clause states that the name of the copyright holder
> shall not be used to promote the product which uses this software.
No , that's not the advertisement clause: you can identify it because on
the classic BSD license it's the third of 4 clauses. We almost don't have
any code under that license (OpenSSL is the typical example).
> Why does this mean that we have to cover it in the NOTICE file?
>
The advertisement clause is this one:
" 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the <organization>."
It is somewhat inconvenient for end distributors but there are deep
political
reasons behind the FSF's hate for this clause (somewhat related to
obliterating the individual in favor of a collective entity owning the
code).
>> 2. To inform about probable patent issues.
>>
>> The above two things are typically the things that make software GPL
>> incompatible.
>>
>> My conclusions are:
>>
>> (1) We are carrying way too much information in our NOTICE and
>> LICENSE files.
>>
>>
>> (2) The mere existance of a LICENSE file would indicate we cannot
>> comply with
>> the GPL. The GPL, however only applies to distribution not to use.
>>
>> I think to be consistent with (2) we cannot carry GPL notices, plus
>> those are not
>> shipped always. I think the way around that is add a general
>> disclaimer note
>> about "alien" extensions that may be included in a binary package
>> that are under
>> an independent license but don't constitute derived works.
>>
>>> Thus, I will continue my work on this task:
>>> - First I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the
>>> source package
>>> of our release. These will be the files trunk/main/LICENSE and
>>> trunk/main/NOTICE
>> This must be stripped, Please note that we already carry information
>> about other
>> Apache Projects like Tomcat and Commons in our NOTICE file. The AL2
>> doesn't
>> have an advertisement clause, so I think almost everything there
>> should go except
>> for OpenSSL and maybe the ICC stuff and the Adobe stuff.
>>
>>> - Then I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the binary
>>> packages
>>> of our release. I will name them trunk/main/LICENSE-binary-package and
>>> trunk/main/NOTICE-binary-package
>>>
>>
>> You can call make LICENSE addendums but then those vary with the
>> specific
>> dictionaries bundled. In the thread there is uncertainty if we should
>> include
>> such thing in LICENSE or if we should just note them prominently in the
>> extensions themselves.
>>
>
> Have you seen William A. Rowe Jr.'s reply on legal-discuss. He stated
> that it should be included in the LICENSE file.
>
OK, I read it. I agree that would be the ideal but still that is not
legally consistent.
IMHO, it's really a bad idea to bundle GPL stuff in the binary packages.
We are about to repeat the PostgreSQL - GNU readline+OpenSSL incident:
http://lwn.net/Articles/428111/
Cheers,
Pedro.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Oliver;
On 03/29/12 10:23, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>
>>
>> The advertisement clause is this one:
>>
>> " 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
>> software
>> must display the following acknowledgement:
>> This product includes software developed by the <organization>."
>>
>> It is somewhat inconvenient for end distributors but there are deep
>> political
>> reasons behind the FSF's hate for this clause (somewhat related to
>> obliterating the individual in favor of a collective entity owning
>> the code).
>>
>
>
> Thank you very much for this clarification.
> I am just doing the wrong stuff - Thx a lot.
>
No problem ... it's not really all crystal clear and there no guide
through this ;).
>>>
>>> Have you seen William A. Rowe Jr.'s reply on legal-discuss. He
>>> stated that it
>>> should be included in the LICENSE file.
>>>
>> OK, I read it. I agree that would be the ideal but still that is not
>> legally
>> consistent.
>>
>> IMHO, it's really a bad idea to bundle GPL stuff in the binary packages.
>>
>
> I more or less can understand this from your point of view.
>
> Our users which want to use our office it is hardly understandable,
> why certain stuff is not directly available after they have installed
> the software. I think these kind of users do not care about which
> open-source license the pieces have they are using.
>
Yes, and to be honest I don't really care about it either.
The real inconsistency is in the guys that licensed the dictionary:
I doubt they will sue anyone, and even if they could we are not
removing OpenSSL to include a dictionary :-P.
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Pedro,
On 29.03.2012 15:55, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> On 03/29/12 06:19, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>> Hi Pedro,
>>
>> On 28.03.2012 17:23, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>> Hello;
>>>
>>> Excuse me I don't really want to be involved in this discussion.
>>> I am simply tired of looking those files!
>>>
>>
>> Thx again for your work on these files.
>>
>>> However.. just my $0.02.
>>>
>>> On 03/28/12 04:18, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>> ...
>>>> There is already feedback on legal-discuss regarding my post.
>>>> A short summary:
>>>> - It seems that LICENSE file and NOTICE file of integrated Apache projects as
>>>> 3rd party components need to be considered. E.g. Apache APR
>>>> - It seems that notices of 3rd party components which are licensed under the
>>>> Apache license need to be considered. E.g. serf
>>>> - For our planned binary packages the bundled dictionary extensions need to be
>>>> considered.
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested in further details you may have a look at
>>>> http://markmail.org/thread/ze722s7ovb5pjdnn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The thread and particualrly Marvin Humphrey's first reply are very interesting
>>> but I don't agree with your summary.
>>>
>>> It is clear to me that the NOTICE file has only to purposes:
>>>
>>> 1. To cover for the advertisement clause the classic BSD licenses and ASL
>>> (1-1.1).
>>
>> I am not an expert here. Thus, let me ask some questions to be sure:
>> If the advertising clause is included in the use BSD license then we have
>> cover it in the NOTICE file. Right?
>> The advertising clause states that the name of the copyright holder shall not
>> be used to promote the product which uses this software.
>
> No , that's not the advertisement clause: you can identify it because on
> the classic BSD license it's the third of 4 clauses. We almost don't have
> any code under that license (OpenSSL is the typical example).
>
>
>> Why does this mean that we have to cover it in the NOTICE file?
>>
>
> The advertisement clause is this one:
>
> " 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
> must display the following acknowledgement:
> This product includes software developed by the <organization>."
>
> It is somewhat inconvenient for end distributors but there are deep political
> reasons behind the FSF's hate for this clause (somewhat related to
> obliterating the individual in favor of a collective entity owning the code).
>
Thank you very much for this clarification.
I am just doing the wrong stuff - Thx a lot.
>>> 2. To inform about probable patent issues.
>>>
>>> The above two things are typically the things that make software GPL
>>> incompatible.
>>>
>>> My conclusions are:
>>>
>>> (1) We are carrying way too much information in our NOTICE and LICENSE files.
>>>
>>>
>>> (2) The mere existance of a LICENSE file would indicate we cannot comply with
>>> the GPL. The GPL, however only applies to distribution not to use.
>>>
>>> I think to be consistent with (2) we cannot carry GPL notices, plus those are
>>> not
>>> shipped always. I think the way around that is add a general disclaimer note
>>> about "alien" extensions that may be included in a binary package that are under
>>> an independent license but don't constitute derived works.
>>>
>>>> Thus, I will continue my work on this task:
>>>> - First I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the source package
>>>> of our release. These will be the files trunk/main/LICENSE and
>>>> trunk/main/NOTICE
>>> This must be stripped, Please note that we already carry information about other
>>> Apache Projects like Tomcat and Commons in our NOTICE file. The AL2 doesn't
>>> have an advertisement clause, so I think almost everything there should go
>>> except
>>> for OpenSSL and maybe the ICC stuff and the Adobe stuff.
>>>
>>>> - Then I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the binary packages
>>>> of our release. I will name them trunk/main/LICENSE-binary-package and
>>>> trunk/main/NOTICE-binary-package
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can call make LICENSE addendums but then those vary with the specific
>>> dictionaries bundled. In the thread there is uncertainty if we should include
>>> such thing in LICENSE or if we should just note them prominently in the
>>> extensions themselves.
>>>
>>
>> Have you seen William A. Rowe Jr.'s reply on legal-discuss. He stated that it
>> should be included in the LICENSE file.
>>
> OK, I read it. I agree that would be the ideal but still that is not legally
> consistent.
>
> IMHO, it's really a bad idea to bundle GPL stuff in the binary packages.
>
I more or less can understand this from your point of view.
Our users which want to use our office it is hardly understandable, why certain
stuff is not directly available after they have installed the software. I think
these kind of users do not care about which open-source license the pieces have
they are using.
Best regards, Oliver.
> We are about to repeat the PostgreSQL - GNU readline+OpenSSL incident:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/428111/
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pedro.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
On 03/29/12 06:19, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> On 28.03.2012 17:23, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> Hello;
>>
>> Excuse me I don't really want to be involved in this discussion.
>> I am simply tired of looking those files!
>>
>
> Thx again for your work on these files.
>
>> However.. just my $0.02.
>>
>> On 03/28/12 04:18, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> ...
>>> There is already feedback on legal-discuss regarding my post.
>>> A short summary:
>>> - It seems that LICENSE file and NOTICE file of integrated Apache
>>> projects as
>>> 3rd party components need to be considered. E.g. Apache APR
>>> - It seems that notices of 3rd party components which are licensed
>>> under the
>>> Apache license need to be considered. E.g. serf
>>> - For our planned binary packages the bundled dictionary extensions
>>> need to be
>>> considered.
>>>
>>> If you are interested in further details you may have a look at
>>> http://markmail.org/thread/ze722s7ovb5pjdnn
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The thread and particualrly Marvin Humphrey's first reply are very
>> interesting
>> but I don't agree with your summary.
>>
>> It is clear to me that the NOTICE file has only to purposes:
>>
>> 1. To cover for the advertisement clause the classic BSD licenses and
>> ASL (1-1.1).
>
> I am not an expert here. Thus, let me ask some questions to be sure:
> If the advertising clause is included in the use BSD license then we
> have cover it in the NOTICE file. Right?
> The advertising clause states that the name of the copyright holder
> shall not be used to promote the product which uses this software.
No , that's not the advertisement clause: you can identify it because on
the classic BSD license it's the third of 4 clauses. We almost don't have
any code under that license (OpenSSL is the typical example).
> Why does this mean that we have to cover it in the NOTICE file?
>
The advertisement clause is this one:
" 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the <organization>."
It is somewhat inconvenient for end distributors but there are deep
political
reasons behind the FSF's hate for this clause (somewhat related to
obliterating the individual in favor of a collective entity owning the
code).
>> 2. To inform about probable patent issues.
>>
>> The above two things are typically the things that make software GPL
>> incompatible.
>>
>> My conclusions are:
>>
>> (1) We are carrying way too much information in our NOTICE and
>> LICENSE files.
>>
>>
>> (2) The mere existance of a LICENSE file would indicate we cannot
>> comply with
>> the GPL. The GPL, however only applies to distribution not to use.
>>
>> I think to be consistent with (2) we cannot carry GPL notices, plus
>> those are not
>> shipped always. I think the way around that is add a general
>> disclaimer note
>> about "alien" extensions that may be included in a binary package
>> that are under
>> an independent license but don't constitute derived works.
>>
>>> Thus, I will continue my work on this task:
>>> - First I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the
>>> source package
>>> of our release. These will be the files trunk/main/LICENSE and
>>> trunk/main/NOTICE
>> This must be stripped, Please note that we already carry information
>> about other
>> Apache Projects like Tomcat and Commons in our NOTICE file. The AL2
>> doesn't
>> have an advertisement clause, so I think almost everything there
>> should go except
>> for OpenSSL and maybe the ICC stuff and the Adobe stuff.
>>
>>> - Then I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the binary
>>> packages
>>> of our release. I will name them trunk/main/LICENSE-binary-package and
>>> trunk/main/NOTICE-binary-package
>>>
>>
>> You can call make LICENSE addendums but then those vary with the
>> specific
>> dictionaries bundled. In the thread there is uncertainty if we should
>> include
>> such thing in LICENSE or if we should just note them prominently in the
>> extensions themselves.
>>
>
> Have you seen William A. Rowe Jr.'s reply on legal-discuss. He stated
> that it should be included in the LICENSE file.
>
OK, I read it. I agree that would be the ideal but still that is not
legally consistent.
IMHO, it's really a bad idea to bundle GPL stuff in the binary packages.
We are about to repeat the PostgreSQL - GNU readline+OpenSSL incident:
http://lwn.net/Articles/428111/
Cheers,
Pedro.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Pedro,
On 28.03.2012 17:23, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello;
>
> Excuse me I don't really want to be involved in this discussion.
> I am simply tired of looking those files!
>
Thx again for your work on these files.
> However.. just my $0.02.
>
> On 03/28/12 04:18, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>> Hi
>> ...
>> There is already feedback on legal-discuss regarding my post.
>> A short summary:
>> - It seems that LICENSE file and NOTICE file of integrated Apache projects as
>> 3rd party components need to be considered. E.g. Apache APR
>> - It seems that notices of 3rd party components which are licensed under the
>> Apache license need to be considered. E.g. serf
>> - For our planned binary packages the bundled dictionary extensions need to be
>> considered.
>>
>> If you are interested in further details you may have a look at
>> http://markmail.org/thread/ze722s7ovb5pjdnn
>>
>>
>
> The thread and particualrly Marvin Humphrey's first reply are very interesting
> but I don't agree with your summary.
>
> It is clear to me that the NOTICE file has only to purposes:
>
> 1. To cover for the advertisement clause the classic BSD licenses and ASL (1-1.1).
I am not an expert here. Thus, let me ask some questions to be sure:
If the advertising clause is included in the use BSD license then we have cover
it in the NOTICE file. Right?
The advertising clause states that the name of the copyright holder shall not be
used to promote the product which uses this software.
Why does this mean that we have to cover it in the NOTICE file?
> 2. To inform about probable patent issues.
>
> The above two things are typically the things that make software GPL incompatible.
>
> My conclusions are:
>
> (1) We are carrying way too much information in our NOTICE and LICENSE files.
>
>
> (2) The mere existance of a LICENSE file would indicate we cannot comply with
> the GPL. The GPL, however only applies to distribution not to use.
>
> I think to be consistent with (2) we cannot carry GPL notices, plus those are not
> shipped always. I think the way around that is add a general disclaimer note
> about "alien" extensions that may be included in a binary package that are under
> an independent license but don't constitute derived works.
>
>> Thus, I will continue my work on this task:
>> - First I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the source package
>> of our release. These will be the files trunk/main/LICENSE and trunk/main/NOTICE
> This must be stripped, Please note that we already carry information about other
> Apache Projects like Tomcat and Commons in our NOTICE file. The AL2 doesn't
> have an advertisement clause, so I think almost everything there should go except
> for OpenSSL and maybe the ICC stuff and the Adobe stuff.
>
>> - Then I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the binary packages
>> of our release. I will name them trunk/main/LICENSE-binary-package and
>> trunk/main/NOTICE-binary-package
>>
>
> You can call make LICENSE addendums but then those vary with the specific
> dictionaries bundled. In the thread there is uncertainty if we should include
> such thing in LICENSE or if we should just note them prominently in the
> extensions themselves.
>
Have you seen William A. Rowe Jr.'s reply on legal-discuss. He stated that it
should be included in the LICENSE file.
Best regards, Oliver.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hello;
Excuse me I don't really want to be involved in this discussion.
I am simply tired of looking those files!
However.. just my $0.02.
On 03/28/12 04:18, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi
> ...
> There is already feedback on legal-discuss regarding my post.
> A short summary:
> - It seems that LICENSE file and NOTICE file of integrated Apache
> projects as 3rd party components need to be considered. E.g. Apache APR
> - It seems that notices of 3rd party components which are licensed
> under the Apache license need to be considered. E.g. serf
> - For our planned binary packages the bundled dictionary extensions
> need to be considered.
>
> If you are interested in further details you may have a look at
> http://markmail.org/thread/ze722s7ovb5pjdnn
>
>
The thread and particualrly Marvin Humphrey's first reply are very
interesting
but I don't agree with your summary.
It is clear to me that the NOTICE file has only to purposes:
1. To cover for the advertisement clause the classic BSD licenses and
ASL (1-1.1).
2. To inform about probable patent issues.
The above two things are typically the things that make software GPL
incompatible.
My conclusions are:
(1) We are carrying way too much information in our NOTICE and LICENSE
files.
(2) The mere existance of a LICENSE file would indicate we cannot comply
with
the GPL. The GPL, however only applies to distribution not to use.
I think to be consistent with (2) we cannot carry GPL notices, plus
those are not
shipped always. I think the way around that is add a general disclaimer note
about "alien" extensions that may be included in a binary package that
are under
an independent license but don't constitute derived works.
> Thus, I will continue my work on this task:
> - First I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the source
> package of our release. These will be the files trunk/main/LICENSE and
> trunk/main/NOTICE
This must be stripped, Please note that we already carry information
about other
Apache Projects like Tomcat and Commons in our NOTICE file. The AL2 doesn't
have an advertisement clause, so I think almost everything there should
go except
for OpenSSL and maybe the ICC stuff and the Adobe stuff.
> - Then I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the binary
> packages of our release. I will name them
> trunk/main/LICENSE-binary-package and trunk/main/NOTICE-binary-package
>
You can call make LICENSE addendums but then those vary with the specific
dictionaries bundled. In the thread there is uncertainty if we should
include
such thing in LICENSE or if we should just note them prominently in the
extensions themselves.
Pedro.
cheers,
Pedro.
I think
> Best regards, Oliver.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
On 02.04.2012 16:52, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28.03.2012 11:18, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On 27.03.2012 16:54, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Thx for the input so far.
>>>
>>> My work stopped, because of the ongoing discussion on legal-discuss. Greg Stein
>>> has started at legal-discuss a corresponding thread, named "use of LICENSE and
>>> NOTICE". To be sure how to proceed I will send the following information to
>>> legal-discuss:
>>>
>>> List of links on apache.org with information regarding the content of the
>>> LICENSE file and the NOTICE file which I have found:
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>>> [2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>>> [3] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright
>>> [4] http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
>>> [5]
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
>>> [6]
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-notice
>>>
>>> My intepretation of this information and the information given in the thread at
>>> legal-discuss is the following:
>>> - Content of LICENSE file - general conclusion:
>>> -- Apache license at the top
>>> -- Licenses of all 3rd party components included in the specific package of a
>>> release inclusive a clear identification of the files to whose the license
>>> apply.
>>>
>>> - Content of NOTICE file - general conclusion:
>>> -- Standard copyright notice as given at [1] at the top
>>> -- Notices which are required by 3rd party component licenses which should be
>>> quite rare.
>>>
>>> - Further conclusions by orw for the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project:
>>> -- We (AOO incubating) are planning to release a source package and binary
>>> packages. The binary package will include certain category-b licensed
>>> components. Thus, I assume that we need for each package an own LICENSE file and
>>> an own NOTICE file.
>>> -- The LICENSE file and the NOTICE file for the source package will cover the
>>> licenses of our source files.
>>> -- The LICENSE files and the NOTICE files for the binary package will cover
>>> additionally all licenses from the enabled category-b licensed components.
>>>
>>> If there are no objections I will continue my work regarding the above
>>> interpretations.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is already feedback on legal-discuss regarding my post.
>> A short summary:
>> - It seems that LICENSE file and NOTICE file of integrated Apache projects as
>> 3rd party components need to be considered. E.g. Apache APR
>> - It seems that notices of 3rd party components which are licensed under the
>> Apache license need to be considered. E.g. serf
>> - For our planned binary packages the bundled dictionary extensions need to be
>> considered.
>>
>> If you are interested in further details you may have a look at
>> http://markmail.org/thread/ze722s7ovb5pjdnn
>>
>>
>> Thus, I will continue my work on this task:
>> - First I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the source package of
>> our release. These will be the files trunk/main/LICENSE and trunk/main/NOTICE
>> - Then I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the binary packages of
>> our release. I will name them trunk/main/LICENSE-binary-package and
>> trunk/main/NOTICE-binary-package
>>
>>
>
> I have finished my rework on the LICENSE file and the NOTICE file regarding the
> feedback we have got.
>
> Thx again to Pedro, who already did a great job on these files. And sorry Pedro,
> that I have completely restructured the files.
>
> I will continue to rework the newly created files LICENSE|NOTICE_category_b for
> category-b licensed stuff in our planned binary packages. Herbert (hdu) has
> already created these files with initial content from former LICENSE file and
> NOTICE file.
>
> Afterwards I will fill the LICENSE|NOTICE_aggregated files.
>
>
I have finished my work on LICENSE|NOTICE_category_b and
LICENSE|NOTICE_aggregated files.
Herbert (hdu) is now working on delivering an concatinated LICENSE and NOTICE
file in the binary package - issue 119168.
Best regards, Oliver.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>.
On 02.04.2012 17:50, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>
> --- Lun 2/4/12, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann ha scritto:
>
>>
>> I have finished my rework on the LICENSE file and the NOTICE
>> file regarding the feedback we have got.
>>
>> Thx again to Pedro, who already did a great job on these
>> files. And sorry Pedro, that I have completely
>> restructured the files.
>>
>
> :).
>
> You are welcome, I am really happy someone took over
> this and I certainly don't complain about your changes.
>
>
>> I will continue to rework the newly created files
>> LICENSE|NOTICE_category_b for
>> category-b licensed stuff in our planned binary packages.
>> Herbert (hdu) has
>> already created these files with initial content from former
>> LICENSE file and
>> NOTICE file.
>>
>> Afterwards I will fill the LICENSE|NOTICE_aggreted files.
>>
>
> The NOTICE_category_b carries licenses, perhaps you copied
> again the LICENSE_category_b file?
>
> Just a reminder: for the Category B software you should
> include links to the sources because we are not supposed
> to carry them in our SVN tree.
>
> FWIW, I think we will have to tweak configure.in to disable
> the extra fonts by default but enable them in the buildbots.
I have created bug 119170 ([1]) for this. If nobody else volunteers and
if it has the show stopper flag by then, I will fix this tomorrow
morning (german time, whatever that is at the moment (still suffering
from the recent switch to DST))
-Andre
[1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119170
>
> Pedro.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Lun 2/4/12, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann ha scritto:
>
> I have finished my rework on the LICENSE file and the NOTICE
> file regarding the feedback we have got.
>
> Thx again to Pedro, who already did a great job on these
> files. And sorry Pedro, that I have completely
> restructured the files.
>
:).
You are welcome, I am really happy someone took over
this and I certainly don't complain about your changes.
> I will continue to rework the newly created files
> LICENSE|NOTICE_category_b for
> category-b licensed stuff in our planned binary packages.
> Herbert (hdu) has
> already created these files with initial content from former
> LICENSE file and
> NOTICE file.
>
> Afterwards I will fill the LICENSE|NOTICE_aggreted files.
>
The NOTICE_category_b carries licenses, perhaps you copied
again the LICENSE_category_b file?
Just a reminder: for the Category B software you should
include links to the sources because we are not supposed
to carry them in our SVN tree.
FWIW, I think we will have to tweak configure.in to disable
the extra fonts by default but enable them in the buildbots.
Pedro.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
On 28.03.2012 11:18, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 27.03.2012 16:54, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Thx for the input so far.
>>
>> My work stopped, because of the ongoing discussion on legal-discuss. Greg Stein
>> has started at legal-discuss a corresponding thread, named "use of LICENSE and
>> NOTICE". To be sure how to proceed I will send the following information to
>> legal-discuss:
>>
>> List of links on apache.org with information regarding the content of the
>> LICENSE file and the NOTICE file which I have found:
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>> [2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>> [3] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright
>> [4] http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
>> [5]
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
>> [6]
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-notice
>>
>> My intepretation of this information and the information given in the thread at
>> legal-discuss is the following:
>> - Content of LICENSE file - general conclusion:
>> -- Apache license at the top
>> -- Licenses of all 3rd party components included in the specific package of a
>> release inclusive a clear identification of the files to whose the license apply.
>>
>> - Content of NOTICE file - general conclusion:
>> -- Standard copyright notice as given at [1] at the top
>> -- Notices which are required by 3rd party component licenses which should be
>> quite rare.
>>
>> - Further conclusions by orw for the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project:
>> -- We (AOO incubating) are planning to release a source package and binary
>> packages. The binary package will include certain category-b licensed
>> components. Thus, I assume that we need for each package an own LICENSE file and
>> an own NOTICE file.
>> -- The LICENSE file and the NOTICE file for the source package will cover the
>> licenses of our source files.
>> -- The LICENSE files and the NOTICE files for the binary package will cover
>> additionally all licenses from the enabled category-b licensed components.
>>
>> If there are no objections I will continue my work regarding the above
>> interpretations.
>>
>>
>
> There is already feedback on legal-discuss regarding my post.
> A short summary:
> - It seems that LICENSE file and NOTICE file of integrated Apache projects as
> 3rd party components need to be considered. E.g. Apache APR
> - It seems that notices of 3rd party components which are licensed under the
> Apache license need to be considered. E.g. serf
> - For our planned binary packages the bundled dictionary extensions need to be
> considered.
>
> If you are interested in further details you may have a look at
> http://markmail.org/thread/ze722s7ovb5pjdnn
>
>
> Thus, I will continue my work on this task:
> - First I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the source package of
> our release. These will be the files trunk/main/LICENSE and trunk/main/NOTICE
> - Then I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the binary packages of
> our release. I will name them trunk/main/LICENSE-binary-package and
> trunk/main/NOTICE-binary-package
>
>
I have finished my rework on the LICENSE file and the NOTICE file regarding the
feedback we have got.
Thx again to Pedro, who already did a great job on these files. And sorry Pedro,
that I have completely restructured the files.
I will continue to rework the newly created files LICENSE|NOTICE_category_b for
category-b licensed stuff in our planned binary packages. Herbert (hdu) has
already created these files with initial content from former LICENSE file and
NOTICE file.
Afterwards I will fill the LICENSE|NOTICE_aggreted files.
Best regards, Oliver.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi
On 27.03.2012 16:54, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thx for the input so far.
>
> My work stopped, because of the ongoing discussion on legal-discuss. Greg Stein
> has started at legal-discuss a corresponding thread, named "use of LICENSE and
> NOTICE". To be sure how to proceed I will send the following information to
> legal-discuss:
>
> List of links on apache.org with information regarding the content of the
> LICENSE file and the NOTICE file which I have found:
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> [2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
> [3] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright
> [4] http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
> [5] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
> [6] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-notice
>
> My intepretation of this information and the information given in the thread at
> legal-discuss is the following:
> - Content of LICENSE file - general conclusion:
> -- Apache license at the top
> -- Licenses of all 3rd party components included in the specific package of a
> release inclusive a clear identification of the files to whose the license apply.
>
> - Content of NOTICE file - general conclusion:
> -- Standard copyright notice as given at [1] at the top
> -- Notices which are required by 3rd party component licenses which should be
> quite rare.
>
> - Further conclusions by orw for the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project:
> -- We (AOO incubating) are planning to release a source package and binary
> packages. The binary package will include certain category-b licensed
> components. Thus, I assume that we need for each package an own LICENSE file and
> an own NOTICE file.
> -- The LICENSE file and the NOTICE file for the source package will cover the
> licenses of our source files.
> -- The LICENSE files and the NOTICE files for the binary package will cover
> additionally all licenses from the enabled category-b licensed components.
>
> If there are no objections I will continue my work regarding the above
> interpretations.
>
>
There is already feedback on legal-discuss regarding my post.
A short summary:
- It seems that LICENSE file and NOTICE file of integrated Apache projects as
3rd party components need to be considered. E.g. Apache APR
- It seems that notices of 3rd party components which are licensed under the
Apache license need to be considered. E.g. serf
- For our planned binary packages the bundled dictionary extensions need to be
considered.
If you are interested in further details you may have a look at
http://markmail.org/thread/ze722s7ovb5pjdnn
Thus, I will continue my work on this task:
- First I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the source package of
our release. These will be the files trunk/main/LICENSE and trunk/main/NOTICE
- Then I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the binary packages of
our release. I will name them trunk/main/LICENSE-binary-package and
trunk/main/NOTICE-binary-package
Best regards, Oliver.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi
Thx for the input so far.
My work stopped, because of the ongoing discussion on legal-discuss. Greg Stein
has started at legal-discuss a corresponding thread, named "use of LICENSE and
NOTICE". To be sure how to proceed I will send the following information to
legal-discuss:
List of links on apache.org with information regarding the content of the
LICENSE file and the NOTICE file which I have found:
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
[2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
[3] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright
[4] http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
[5] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
[6] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-notice
My intepretation of this information and the information given in the thread at
legal-discuss is the following:
- Content of LICENSE file - general conclusion:
-- Apache license at the top
-- Licenses of all 3rd party components included in the specific package of a
release inclusive a clear identification of the files to whose the license apply.
- Content of NOTICE file - general conclusion:
-- Standard copyright notice as given at [1] at the top
-- Notices which are required by 3rd party component licenses which should be
quite rare.
- Further conclusions by orw for the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project:
-- We (AOO incubating) are planning to release a source package and binary
packages. The binary package will include certain category-b licensed
components. Thus, I assume that we need for each package an own LICENSE file and
an own NOTICE file.
-- The LICENSE file and the NOTICE file for the source package will cover the
licenses of our source files.
-- The LICENSE files and the NOTICE files for the binary package will cover
additionally all licenses from the enabled category-b licensed components.
If there are no objections I will continue my work regarding the above
interpretations.
Best regards, Oliver.
On 23.03.2012 11:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I will have a look at the NOTICE and the LICENSE file - both located in main/ -,
> if there is something missing.
>
> Pedro already did a great job here - I am more or less expecting that everything
> is already covered in these files.
>
> If there is any input regarding its content, please provide the information here
> - Thanks in advance.
>
> I will mainly assure that the notices and licenses of the current work regarding
> the RAT scan which results in certain entries in the rat-excludes are also
> covered in the NOTICE and LICENSE file.
>
> Help is very welcome here.
> Thus again, if you know of the one or the other 3rd party
> component/library/code, drop me a note. I will check, if these are reflected in
> these files.
>
> Thanks in advance, Oliver.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
On 23.03.2012 14:43, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
> <or...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 23.03.2012 13:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 23.03.2012 12:47, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 23.03.2012 11:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I will have a look at the NOTICE and the LICENSE file - both located in
>>>>> main/ -,
>>>>> if there is something missing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pedro already did a great job here - I am more or less expecting that
>>>>> everything
>>>>> is already covered in these files.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is any input regarding its content, please provide the
>>>>> information here
>>>>> - Thanks in advance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will mainly assure that the notices and licenses of the current work
>>>>> regarding
>>>>> the RAT scan which results in certain entries in the rat-excludes are
>>>>> also
>>>>> covered in the NOTICE and LICENSE file.
>>>>>
>>>>> Help is very welcome here.
>>>>> Thus again, if you know of the one or the other 3rd party
>>>>> component/library/code, drop me a note. I will check, if these are
>>>>> reflected in
>>>>> these files.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Before starting to work on these files I had a look at the corresponding
>>>> Apache
>>>> policies/rules/... regarding these files - [1], [2], [3]
>>>>
>>>> I have discovered [9] which more or less state that an entry into the
>>>> NOTICE
>>>> file is mostly not needed and depends on the specific license of the 3rd
>>>> party
>>>> component.
>>>> Having a look at the LICENSE and NOTICE file of Apache httpd project
>>>> seems to
>>>> confirm this.
>>>>
>>>> Pedro, do you consider [9] when you did your hard work on the NOTICE
>>>> file?
>>>>
>>>> Mentors (and others too, of course), do you have certain advise what kind
>>>> of
>>>> wordings in a license makes an entry in the NOTICE file necessary?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>>> [2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>> [3] http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>>>>
>>>> [9] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Looking at the LICENSE files of Apache httpd and subversion projects
>>> reveals
>>> that for each license in the LICENSE file the corresponding
>>> source/component is
>>> identified. Some like:
>>> - "For the mod_mime_magic component:"
>>> - "For the modules\mappers\mod_imagemap.c component:"
>>>
>>> Is such an identification necessary in the LICENSE file?
>>> I did not find information about the form of the LICENSE file content on
>>> apache.org.
>>
>>
>> Further searching helps here ;-)
>> I have found [4]:
>> <quote>
>> ...
>> All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should be
>> included in the LICENSE document. This LICENSE (courtesy of Apache HTTPD) is
>> a good example. The Apache License is at the top of the LICENSE document.
>> After that, the license for each non-Apache licensed component is included,
>> along with a clear explanation of which files that license applies to.
>> ...
>> </quote>
>> Thus, I derive from this best practice that an identification of the files
>> to which the mentioned license in the LICENSE file applies to should be
>> given.
>>
>
> But note the further complexity with AOO, that we have binary as well
> as source packages in our release. And our binary packages includes
> 3rd party category-b libraries that are not included in our source
> package. So we need to make this clear somehow in our LICENSE.
>
> Maybe we need a LICENCE_source and LICENCE_binary file in SVN that
> contains the respective. Then we can rename or cat that together to
> produce the appropriate license for a package.
>
> -Rob
>
Thanks for the hint.
I will continue to concentrate on the source stuff.
Any volunteers to pick up on the additional binary stuff?
As the 3rd party category-b libraries are all optional we may also would need a
certain generation process for the 3rd party category-b libraries which are
included in a certain package. This would assure that only whose license are
included in the LICENSE file which are included in the package.
Thinking further about 'generating' the LICENSE and the NOTICE file it would
make sense that in the future we do not maintain the LICENSE and NOTICE file by
hand. As we are including a lot of 3rd party components it would make sense to
have the individual pieces for the LICENSE and NOTICE file located beside the
3rd party components in the source tree. A corresponding script could be
implemented to put the pieces together into the mandatory LICENSE and NOTICE
file. This could be an future task for us to improve the LICENSE and NOTICE file
maintainance.
Best regards, Oliver.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 03/23/12 10:47, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Pedro Giffuni<pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/23/12 08:43, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Further searching helps here ;-)
>>>> I have found [4]:
>>>> <quote>
>>>> ...
>>>> All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should
>>>> be
>>>> included in the LICENSE document. This LICENSE (courtesy of Apache
>>>> HTTPD)
>>>> is
>>>> a good example. The Apache License is at the top of the LICENSE
>>>> document.
>>>> After that, the license for each non-Apache licensed component is
>>>> included,
>>>> along with a clear explanation of which files that license applies to.
>>>> ...
>>>> </quote>
>>>> Thus, I derive from this best practice that an identification of the
>>>> files
>>>> to which the mentioned license in the LICENSE file applies to should be
>>>> given.
>>>>
>>>> But note the further complexity with AOO, that we have binary as well
>>>> as source packages in our release. And our binary packages includes
>>>> 3rd party category-b libraries that are not included in our source
>>>> package. So we need to make this clear somehow in our LICENSE.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we need a LICENCE_source and LICENCE_binary file in SVN that
>>>> contains the respective. Then we can rename or cat that together to
>>>> produce the appropriate license for a package.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is not accurate.
>>>
>>> As I have mentioned tirelessly there is not such thing as a
>>> source release and a binary release, just a release. That
>>> means the one true LICENSE file includes all the source
>>> and binary components.
>>>
>> And again Pedro, I have not used the term "source release" or "binary
>> release". I said, "we have binary as well as source packages in our
>> release.". That is perfectly accurate.
>
>
> I noticed but you implied it when speaking of LICENSE_source
> LICENSE_binary.
>
Our binary and source packages contain different code, with different
licensees and different notice requirements. Of course it makes
sense to think of these as different. The point about releases is
that at Apache we're not just making applications available to users.
We're making open source code available to other developers, to use as
they wish. The source code package should not just be an after
thought. It is an important part of what we're doing. And an
important part is to make sure we get the LICENSE and NOTICE correct,
and not mix up the source and binary package obligations. He help
developers who use our code if we get this right.
>
>>> Rob's statement is not exactly false because we have an
>>> exception in our release process as for the italian case
>>> (and so far only the italian case) we will be bundling GPLd
>>> dictionaries.
>>>
>> Not exactly false == true
>
>
> You really need to take a course on logic.
>
>
>>> Adding the GPL to our LICENSE file would be pretty
>>> confusing for our users, besides this is only for the
>>> italian case, so I think for that case having the GPL
>>> in the dictionary should be enough. Also, we should
>>> add a disclaimer that dictionaries (if included) don't
>>> constitute derivate works.
>>>
>>> All just IMHO, I won't block any attempt to automate
>>> the generation of those files, in fact, I think I'll just not
>>> touch those files anymore :).
>>>
>> Think of it this way: Are there any additional obligations placed on
>> someone who redistributes our binary packages, based on the additional
>> components included there? Does the ASF have any obligations, in
>> terms of required notices, etc., for the binaries we distribute?
>>
>> Note, for example, clause 3.3 of the MPL 1.1:
>
>
> We include MPL already in the LICENSE (category B section).
>
This would be wrong if this is in our source package, since our source
package does not include any MPL code.
Remember,the binaries we have in our binary packages are just one of a
wide spectrum of binaries that a developer could produce from our
source package. With different choice of flags, they could exclude or
include many different 3rd party OSS dependencies. So it is
inaccurate and not-helpful for us to list the arbitrary choices from
our binary packages, and assume that applies to everyone who builds
from our source package.
If we want to provide supplemental documentation that explains the
required licence and notice implications based on each build flag,
then that would be fine. But we should not assume a developer is
making identical choices to us.
> Even lawyers can distinguish if they are using binaries or source.
>
Per above, this is not a simple either/or alternative. Our source
package only needs to cover the requirements of what our source
package includes. It should not be guessing at what build flag the
developer might enable or disable. However, our binary package should
be explicit, since we know exactly what we built.
> Pedro.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
On 03/23/12 10:47, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Pedro Giffuni<pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 03/23/12 08:43, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> ...
>>
>>> Further searching helps here ;-)
>>> I have found [4]:
>>> <quote>
>>> ...
>>> All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should
>>> be
>>> included in the LICENSE document. This LICENSE (courtesy of Apache HTTPD)
>>> is
>>> a good example. The Apache License is at the top of the LICENSE document.
>>> After that, the license for each non-Apache licensed component is
>>> included,
>>> along with a clear explanation of which files that license applies to.
>>> ...
>>> </quote>
>>> Thus, I derive from this best practice that an identification of the files
>>> to which the mentioned license in the LICENSE file applies to should be
>>> given.
>>>
>>> But note the further complexity with AOO, that we have binary as well
>>> as source packages in our release. And our binary packages includes
>>> 3rd party category-b libraries that are not included in our source
>>> package. So we need to make this clear somehow in our LICENSE.
>>>
>>> Maybe we need a LICENCE_source and LICENCE_binary file in SVN that
>>> contains the respective. Then we can rename or cat that together to
>>> produce the appropriate license for a package.
>>
>> This is not accurate.
>>
>> As I have mentioned tirelessly there is not such thing as a
>> source release and a binary release, just a release. That
>> means the one true LICENSE file includes all the source
>> and binary components.
>>
> And again Pedro, I have not used the term "source release" or "binary
> release". I said, "we have binary as well as source packages in our
> release.". That is perfectly accurate.
I noticed but you implied it when speaking of LICENSE_source
LICENSE_binary.
>> Rob's statement is not exactly false because we have an
>> exception in our release process as for the italian case
>> (and so far only the italian case) we will be bundling GPLd
>> dictionaries.
>>
> Not exactly false == true
You really need to take a course on logic.
>> Adding the GPL to our LICENSE file would be pretty
>> confusing for our users, besides this is only for the
>> italian case, so I think for that case having the GPL
>> in the dictionary should be enough. Also, we should
>> add a disclaimer that dictionaries (if included) don't
>> constitute derivate works.
>>
>> All just IMHO, I won't block any attempt to automate
>> the generation of those files, in fact, I think I'll just not
>> touch those files anymore :).
>>
> Think of it this way: Are there any additional obligations placed on
> someone who redistributes our binary packages, based on the additional
> components included there? Does the ASF have any obligations, in
> terms of required notices, etc., for the binaries we distribute?
>
> Note, for example, clause 3.3 of the MPL 1.1:
We include MPL already in the LICENSE (category B section).
Even lawyers can distinguish if they are using binaries or source.
Pedro.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 03/23/12 08:43, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> ...
>
>
>> Further searching helps here ;-)
>> I have found [4]:
>> <quote>
>> ...
>> All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should
>> be
>> included in the LICENSE document. This LICENSE (courtesy of Apache HTTPD)
>> is
>> a good example. The Apache License is at the top of the LICENSE document.
>> After that, the license for each non-Apache licensed component is
>> included,
>> along with a clear explanation of which files that license applies to.
>> ...
>> </quote>
>> Thus, I derive from this best practice that an identification of the files
>> to which the mentioned license in the LICENSE file applies to should be
>> given.
>>
>> But note the further complexity with AOO, that we have binary as well
>> as source packages in our release. And our binary packages includes
>> 3rd party category-b libraries that are not included in our source
>> package. So we need to make this clear somehow in our LICENSE.
>>
>> Maybe we need a LICENCE_source and LICENCE_binary file in SVN that
>> contains the respective. Then we can rename or cat that together to
>> produce the appropriate license for a package.
>
>
> This is not accurate.
>
> As I have mentioned tirelessly there is not such thing as a
> source release and a binary release, just a release. That
> means the one true LICENSE file includes all the source
> and binary components.
>
And again Pedro, I have not used the term "source release" or "binary
release". I said, "we have binary as well as source packages in our
release.". That is perfectly accurate.
> Rob's statement is not exactly false because we have an
> exception in our release process as for the italian case
> (and so far only the italian case) we will be bundling GPLd
> dictionaries.
>
Not exactly false == true
> Adding the GPL to our LICENSE file would be pretty
> confusing for our users, besides this is only for the
> italian case, so I think for that case having the GPL
> in the dictionary should be enough. Also, we should
> add a disclaimer that dictionaries (if included) don't
> constitute derivate works.
>
> All just IMHO, I won't block any attempt to automate
> the generation of those files, in fact, I think I'll just not
> touch those files anymore :).
>
Think of it this way: Are there any additional obligations placed on
someone who redistributes our binary packages, based on the additional
components included there? Does the ASF have any obligations, in
terms of required notices, etc., for the binaries we distribute?
Note, for example, clause 3.3 of the MPL 1.1:
"3.3. Description of Modifications.
You must cause all Covered Code to which You contribute to contain a
file documenting the changes You made to create that Covered Code and
the date of any change. You must include a prominent statement that
the Modification is derived, directly or indirectly, from Original
Code provided by the Initial Developer and including the name of the
Initial Developer in (a) the Source Code, and (b) in any notice in an
Executable version or related documentation in which You describe the
origin or ownership of the Covered Code. "
-Rob
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
On 03/23/12 08:43, Rob Weir wrote:
> ...
> Further searching helps here ;-)
> I have found [4]:
> <quote>
> ...
> All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should be
> included in the LICENSE document. This LICENSE (courtesy of Apache HTTPD) is
> a good example. The Apache License is at the top of the LICENSE document.
> After that, the license for each non-Apache licensed component is included,
> along with a clear explanation of which files that license applies to.
> ...
> </quote>
> Thus, I derive from this best practice that an identification of the files
> to which the mentioned license in the LICENSE file applies to should be
> given.
>
> But note the further complexity with AOO, that we have binary as well
> as source packages in our release. And our binary packages includes
> 3rd party category-b libraries that are not included in our source
> package. So we need to make this clear somehow in our LICENSE.
>
> Maybe we need a LICENCE_source and LICENCE_binary file in SVN that
> contains the respective. Then we can rename or cat that together to
> produce the appropriate license for a package.
This is not accurate.
As I have mentioned tirelessly there is not such thing as a
source release and a binary release, just a release. That
means the one true LICENSE file includes all the source
and binary components.
Rob's statement is not exactly false because we have an
exception in our release process as for the italian case
(and so far only the italian case) we will be bundling GPLd
dictionaries.
Adding the GPL to our LICENSE file would be pretty
confusing for our users, besides this is only for the
italian case, so I think for that case having the GPL
in the dictionary should be enough. Also, we should
add a disclaimer that dictionaries (if included) don't
constitute derivate works.
All just IMHO, I won't block any attempt to automate
the generation of those files, in fact, I think I'll just not
touch those files anymore :).
Pedro.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
<or...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 23.03.2012 13:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 23.03.2012 12:47, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 23.03.2012 11:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I will have a look at the NOTICE and the LICENSE file - both located in
>>>> main/ -,
>>>> if there is something missing.
>>>>
>>>> Pedro already did a great job here - I am more or less expecting that
>>>> everything
>>>> is already covered in these files.
>>>>
>>>> If there is any input regarding its content, please provide the
>>>> information here
>>>> - Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>> I will mainly assure that the notices and licenses of the current work
>>>> regarding
>>>> the RAT scan which results in certain entries in the rat-excludes are
>>>> also
>>>> covered in the NOTICE and LICENSE file.
>>>>
>>>> Help is very welcome here.
>>>> Thus again, if you know of the one or the other 3rd party
>>>> component/library/code, drop me a note. I will check, if these are
>>>> reflected in
>>>> these files.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Before starting to work on these files I had a look at the corresponding
>>> Apache
>>> policies/rules/... regarding these files - [1], [2], [3]
>>>
>>> I have discovered [9] which more or less state that an entry into the
>>> NOTICE
>>> file is mostly not needed and depends on the specific license of the 3rd
>>> party
>>> component.
>>> Having a look at the LICENSE and NOTICE file of Apache httpd project
>>> seems to
>>> confirm this.
>>>
>>> Pedro, do you consider [9] when you did your hard work on the NOTICE
>>> file?
>>>
>>> Mentors (and others too, of course), do you have certain advise what kind
>>> of
>>> wordings in a license makes an entry in the NOTICE file necessary?
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>> [2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>> [3] http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>>>
>>> [9] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Looking at the LICENSE files of Apache httpd and subversion projects
>> reveals
>> that for each license in the LICENSE file the corresponding
>> source/component is
>> identified. Some like:
>> - "For the mod_mime_magic component:"
>> - "For the modules\mappers\mod_imagemap.c component:"
>>
>> Is such an identification necessary in the LICENSE file?
>> I did not find information about the form of the LICENSE file content on
>> apache.org.
>
>
> Further searching helps here ;-)
> I have found [4]:
> <quote>
> ...
> All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should be
> included in the LICENSE document. This LICENSE (courtesy of Apache HTTPD) is
> a good example. The Apache License is at the top of the LICENSE document.
> After that, the license for each non-Apache licensed component is included,
> along with a clear explanation of which files that license applies to.
> ...
> </quote>
> Thus, I derive from this best practice that an identification of the files
> to which the mentioned license in the LICENSE file applies to should be
> given.
>
But note the further complexity with AOO, that we have binary as well
as source packages in our release. And our binary packages includes
3rd party category-b libraries that are not included in our source
package. So we need to make this clear somehow in our LICENSE.
Maybe we need a LICENCE_source and LICENCE_binary file in SVN that
contains the respective. Then we can rename or cat that together to
produce the appropriate license for a package.
-Rob
> [4]
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
>
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
On 23.03.2012 13:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23.03.2012 12:47, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 23.03.2012 11:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I will have a look at the NOTICE and the LICENSE file - both located in main/ -,
>>> if there is something missing.
>>>
>>> Pedro already did a great job here - I am more or less expecting that everything
>>> is already covered in these files.
>>>
>>> If there is any input regarding its content, please provide the information here
>>> - Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> I will mainly assure that the notices and licenses of the current work regarding
>>> the RAT scan which results in certain entries in the rat-excludes are also
>>> covered in the NOTICE and LICENSE file.
>>>
>>> Help is very welcome here.
>>> Thus again, if you know of the one or the other 3rd party
>>> component/library/code, drop me a note. I will check, if these are reflected in
>>> these files.
>>>
>>
>> Before starting to work on these files I had a look at the corresponding Apache
>> policies/rules/... regarding these files - [1], [2], [3]
>>
>> I have discovered [9] which more or less state that an entry into the NOTICE
>> file is mostly not needed and depends on the specific license of the 3rd party
>> component.
>> Having a look at the LICENSE and NOTICE file of Apache httpd project seems to
>> confirm this.
>>
>> Pedro, do you consider [9] when you did your hard work on the NOTICE file?
>>
>> Mentors (and others too, of course), do you have certain advise what kind of
>> wordings in a license makes an entry in the NOTICE file necessary?
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>> [2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>> [3] http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>>
>> [9] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>>
>>
>
> Looking at the LICENSE files of Apache httpd and subversion projects reveals
> that for each license in the LICENSE file the corresponding source/component is
> identified. Some like:
> - "For the mod_mime_magic component:"
> - "For the modules\mappers\mod_imagemap.c component:"
>
> Is such an identification necessary in the LICENSE file?
> I did not find information about the form of the LICENSE file content on
> apache.org.
Further searching helps here ;-)
I have found [4]:
<quote>
...
All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should be
included in the LICENSE document. This LICENSE (courtesy of Apache HTTPD) is a
good example. The Apache License is at the top of the LICENSE document. After
that, the license for each non-Apache licensed component is included, along with
a clear explanation of which files that license applies to.
...
</quote>
Thus, I derive from this best practice that an identification of the files to
which the mentioned license in the LICENSE file applies to should be given.
[4] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
Best regards, Oliver.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
On 23.03.2012 12:47, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23.03.2012 11:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I will have a look at the NOTICE and the LICENSE file - both located in main/ -,
>> if there is something missing.
>>
>> Pedro already did a great job here - I am more or less expecting that everything
>> is already covered in these files.
>>
>> If there is any input regarding its content, please provide the information here
>> - Thanks in advance.
>>
>> I will mainly assure that the notices and licenses of the current work regarding
>> the RAT scan which results in certain entries in the rat-excludes are also
>> covered in the NOTICE and LICENSE file.
>>
>> Help is very welcome here.
>> Thus again, if you know of the one or the other 3rd party
>> component/library/code, drop me a note. I will check, if these are reflected in
>> these files.
>>
>
> Before starting to work on these files I had a look at the corresponding Apache
> policies/rules/... regarding these files - [1], [2], [3]
>
> I have discovered [9] which more or less state that an entry into the NOTICE
> file is mostly not needed and depends on the specific license of the 3rd party
> component.
> Having a look at the LICENSE and NOTICE file of Apache httpd project seems to
> confirm this.
>
> Pedro, do you consider [9] when you did your hard work on the NOTICE file?
>
> Mentors (and others too, of course), do you have certain advise what kind of
> wordings in a license makes an entry in the NOTICE file necessary?
>
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> [2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> [3] http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>
> [9] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>
>
Looking at the LICENSE files of Apache httpd and subversion projects reveals
that for each license in the LICENSE file the corresponding source/component is
identified. Some like:
- "For the mod_mime_magic component:"
- "For the modules\mappers\mod_imagemap.c component:"
Is such an identification necessary in the LICENSE file?
I did not find information about the form of the LICENSE file content on apache.org.
Thanks, Oliver.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hello Oliver;
Thanks for working on this important issue, I surely welcome
fresh eyes on it.
On 03/23/12 06:47, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi,
> ...
>
> Before starting to work on these files I had a look at the
> corresponding Apache policies/rules/... regarding these files - [1],
> [2], [3]
>
> I have discovered [9] which more or less state that an entry into the
> NOTICE file is mostly not needed and depends on the specific license
> of the 3rd party component.
> Having a look at the LICENSE and NOTICE file of Apache httpd project
> seems to confirm this.
>
> Pedro, do you consider [9] when you did your hard work on the NOTICE
> file?
>
I surely missed it.
When I started to work on that there was a false premise that the
LICENSE file would only carry the AL2 (no finger pointing, but I know
*who* you are guys!), so the NOTICE file tried to cover some of that
information. Providing a link to thirdparty stuff is not always mandatory
but it was good to have a place to know what we use, and where to
get updates.
It is likely there is a lot of redundancy in both files now. The name of
where the stuff is used is not required in the LICENSE file, for example.
Also note there *is* an order: Firstly there are sections according to
the license category: this is good because we have many third party
libraries and we want to eventually replace of the category B stuff.
Secondly, the optional components (and fonts in particular) go last
in their corresponding section. Thirdly we do keep some alphabetical
order according to the associated module so that the NOTICE
and LICENSE files match.
Some remaining issues, out of the top of my head:
For everything under Category B, we have to include links to the
*sources*, and those can't really live in our tree: that is a problem
for seamonkey which is already so outdated it is not available
in the mozilla mirrors.
The OFL is not yet accepted. My suggestion is to turn all
fonts off by default in autoconf but enable them in the builds.
Cheers,
Pedro.
> Mentors (and others too, of course), do you have certain advise what
> kind of wordings in a license makes an entry in the NOTICE file
> necessary?
>
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> [2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> [3] http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>
> [9] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>
>
> Thanks in advance, Oliver.
Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
On 23.03.2012 11:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I will have a look at the NOTICE and the LICENSE file - both located in main/ -,
> if there is something missing.
>
> Pedro already did a great job here - I am more or less expecting that everything
> is already covered in these files.
>
> If there is any input regarding its content, please provide the information here
> - Thanks in advance.
>
> I will mainly assure that the notices and licenses of the current work regarding
> the RAT scan which results in certain entries in the rat-excludes are also
> covered in the NOTICE and LICENSE file.
>
> Help is very welcome here.
> Thus again, if you know of the one or the other 3rd party
> component/library/code, drop me a note. I will check, if these are reflected in
> these files.
>
Before starting to work on these files I had a look at the corresponding Apache
policies/rules/... regarding these files - [1], [2], [3]
I have discovered [9] which more or less state that an entry into the NOTICE
file is mostly not needed and depends on the specific license of the 3rd party
component.
Having a look at the LICENSE and NOTICE file of Apache httpd project seems to
confirm this.
Pedro, do you consider [9] when you did your hard work on the NOTICE file?
Mentors (and others too, of course), do you have certain advise what kind of
wordings in a license makes an entry in the NOTICE file necessary?
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
[2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
[3] http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
[9] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
Thanks in advance, Oliver.