You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> on 2008/01/08 17:39:11 UTC
Notice and License files in JavaDoc jars
To make life easier for IDE users projects often generate a "jar"
(archive) file containing just the "generated" javadocs for a project.
Is it a requirement to have a Notice and License file in that archive
for these generated docs (they're HTML format and have an ASF
copyright line at the bottom of each page).
To me it seems like this is overkill, but some people are vetoing
releases in Apache Commons when its missing.
TIA
Niall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Notice and License files in JavaDoc jars
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 8, 2008 10:17 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 14:01 -0800, Craig L Russell wrote:
> > Hi Niall,
> >
> > I understand this to the policy on this issue [1]
> > "Does the policy apply to binary/object files, such as executables or
> > JAR files?
> >
> > Yes. Even if there are no source files within the release, the
> > LICENSE file and NOTICE file are still both required within every ASF
> > distribution -- whether the unit of distribution is
> > a .jar, .msi, .tar/.?gz, .zip, .exe installer, or any other file
> > format used for distributions. For example, Windows .exe files must
> > not be used as a unit of distribution unless they are installers and
> > include the LICENSE and NOTICE files in their installation."
> >
> > To me, this means that any release must contain the LICENSE and
> > NOTICE files. The question is "What is a distribution?"
> >
> > The way I read it, if someone can download a documentation jar file,
> > it's a distribution. If someone can use maven to automatically
> > download a dependent jar file, it's a distribution. The only time a
> > documentation jar file can omit the LICENSE and NOTICE files is if
> > it's bundled inside a distribution that itself contains the LICENSE
> > and NOTICE files.
>
> +1
>
> (that's the way i intended it to be read and the way i interpret policy)
OK thanks for your answers.
Niall
> - robert
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Notice and License files in JavaDoc jars
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 14:01 -0800, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Niall,
>
> I understand this to the policy on this issue [1]
> "Does the policy apply to binary/object files, such as executables or
> JAR files?
>
> Yes. Even if there are no source files within the release, the
> LICENSE file and NOTICE file are still both required within every ASF
> distribution -- whether the unit of distribution is
> a .jar, .msi, .tar/.?gz, .zip, .exe installer, or any other file
> format used for distributions. For example, Windows .exe files must
> not be used as a unit of distribution unless they are installers and
> include the LICENSE and NOTICE files in their installation."
>
> To me, this means that any release must contain the LICENSE and
> NOTICE files. The question is "What is a distribution?"
>
> The way I read it, if someone can download a documentation jar file,
> it's a distribution. If someone can use maven to automatically
> download a dependent jar file, it's a distribution. The only time a
> documentation jar file can omit the LICENSE and NOTICE files is if
> it's bundled inside a distribution that itself contains the LICENSE
> and NOTICE files.
+1
(that's the way i intended it to be read and the way i interpret policy)
- robert
Re: Notice and License files in JavaDoc jars
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Niall,
I understand this to the policy on this issue [1]
"Does the policy apply to binary/object files, such as executables or
JAR files?
Yes. Even if there are no source files within the release, the
LICENSE file and NOTICE file are still both required within every ASF
distribution -- whether the unit of distribution is
a .jar, .msi, .tar/.?gz, .zip, .exe installer, or any other file
format used for distributions. For example, Windows .exe files must
not be used as a unit of distribution unless they are installers and
include the LICENSE and NOTICE files in their installation."
To me, this means that any release must contain the LICENSE and
NOTICE files. The question is "What is a distribution?"
The way I read it, if someone can download a documentation jar file,
it's a distribution. If someone can use maven to automatically
download a dependent jar file, it's a distribution. The only time a
documentation jar file can omit the LICENSE and NOTICE files is if
it's bundled inside a distribution that itself contains the LICENSE
and NOTICE files.
Craig
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
On Jan 8, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> To make life easier for IDE users projects often generate a "jar"
> (archive) file containing just the "generated" javadocs for a project.
> Is it a requirement to have a Notice and License file in that archive
> for these generated docs (they're HTML format and have an ASF
> copyright line at the bottom of each page).
>
> To me it seems like this is overkill, but some people are vetoing
> releases in Apache Commons when its missing.
>
> TIA
>
> Niall
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Notice and License files in JavaDoc jars
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Jan 9, 2008 10:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/01/2008, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > > To make life easier for IDE users projects often generate a "jar"
> > > (archive) file containing just the "generated" javadocs for a project.
> >
> > ASF Policy isn't governed by the vagaries of development tools. A release
> > packaging script can generate or modify jar files to fulfill ASF policy.
> >
> > In the case of JavaDocs for our own code, it seems to me that the only
> > missing piece would be the license.
> >
>
> Is this because the Javadoc files should already contain something like:
>
> Copyright (c) 1998-2007 Apache Software Foundation
>
> which would otherwise be in the NOTICE file?
Even then, stickler hat on, we still need the NOTICE file. The LICENSE
doesn't say "and make sure you refer to those copyright statements
over there in the file somewhere"; it says "don't lose the NOTICE".
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Notice and License files in JavaDoc jars
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> > In the case of JavaDocs for our own code, it seems to me that the only
> > missing piece would be the license.
> Is this because the Javadoc files should already contain [our copyright]?
Henri's response is more correct, so go with it. What I had in mind was
simply the idea that for our own code's javadocs, there wouldn't need to be
inclusion of anyone else's copyright, since the foreign material would not
be present. As Roy has pointed out elsewhere, that just means that the
content of the NOTICE would differ from artifact to artifact.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Notice and License files in JavaDoc jars
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 09/01/2008, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> > To make life easier for IDE users projects often generate a "jar"
> > (archive) file containing just the "generated" javadocs for a project.
>
> ASF Policy isn't governed by the vagaries of development tools. A release
> packaging script can generate or modify jar files to fulfill ASF policy.
>
> In the case of JavaDocs for our own code, it seems to me that the only
> missing piece would be the license.
>
Is this because the Javadoc files should already contain something like:
Copyright (c) 1998-2007 Apache Software Foundation
which would otherwise be in the NOTICE file?
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Notice and License files in JavaDoc jars
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> To make life easier for IDE users projects often generate a "jar"
> (archive) file containing just the "generated" javadocs for a project.
ASF Policy isn't governed by the vagaries of development tools. A release
packaging script can generate or modify jar files to fulfill ASF policy.
In the case of JavaDocs for our own code, it seems to me that the only
missing piece would be the license.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org