You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by sebb <se...@gmail.com> on 2009/08/22 10:59:16 UTC
Re: LEGAL-59 [WAS Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes of
3rd party licensing policy?]
On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> no one has commented on the patch for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59
>
> are we happy with it?
It's not clear to me what, if anything, needs to go in the NOTICE file for BSD.
> - - robert
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJKj50SAAoJEHl6NpRAqILLv8AP/Rjx3bpe79puionxZqsRxqVw
> YN2n2LjorC3ceTv06Zq+EJvDnfjUky11yzbNbu3/Hibq0M0o8Sh71i7/8P8Bf8K+
> I7VJc2P2sLZUbRLct6skh5vYvvopvqTNjzmlPMvijXrmtEe1Brt0QSpI/qFQRZfa
> tdGfNHwU+YflGim30+iTvTN5q7NHMlV8EhOjXzKPZdNx9u1S+VEO7NuglZ7l/NCV
> zUMrmRGJA/5+0qXjUYRBIb3sX5oVm+CBZPKm+aoxzl+iA5LZg/pBcDGWVc0nmkRC
> qEGMrbicwgaU+Fvd+7lqO7H7hCi5rFUNX0OjusN85MQ3G1pHdwmHRosHELK46cEb
> xz1f5/ccnIwRCx6TwHjFucmqinDufo1c5sAU10XbEoQphr+aDHStVHAyrAMEXCki
> KP1URuP7ffEI25hpxMYZAdfskrW7+9NuZiNOZun3FT88xH+YItAwwFsKx+lUurIt
> YHwz4dez1G41B4ZcEkcf4sUsD2Zw3+QBh0BACNR4IXnIXVXv5ka0KcYk7OsQPZmX
> vpEgtwYTsHhOlWsswgqPTLocxSD/VNxSnDGDdFKOa+c0qrKElfroIBB/vB6S1Thn
> hJVZo8jEcWwGi/IfQlTV+n58hALM260l3s/yUckRiYbIYxk3GrkChjMQ3iXWreuQ
> mH5NVFDlCM/ilo+IwbhD
> =h+ek
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-59 [WAS Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes
of 3rd party licensing policy?]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
sebb wrote:
> On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> sebb wrote:
> > On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA512
> >>
> >> no one has commented on the patch for
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59
> >>
> >> are we happy with it?
>
> > It's not clear to me what, if anything, needs to go in the NOTICE file for BSD.
>
>
> the consensus was that - for binary dependencies - including the licence
> statement in the LICENSE (which for BSD includes the copyright
> statement) is sufficient.
>
>
>> Does this apply to all 3rd party binary dependencies?
>> This was not my understanding.
>> I thought the NOTICE file was for "required notices"; the BSD license
>> seems to demand one.
>
>> Also, the patch says:
>
>> "There is no need to additionally include the license text in the NOTICE."
>
>> which is not clear. It could mean:
>> - don't include anything in NOTICE
>> - only include the product name and Copyright
the product name and copyright aren't needed when it's a binary dependency
- - robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=4U9/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-59 [WAS Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes
of 3rd party licensing policy?]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
sebb wrote:
> On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
>>>> On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> > > On 22/08/2009, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> >>>> sebb wrote:
> > > > On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > >> Hash: SHA512
> > > >>
> > > >> no one has commented on the patch for
> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59
> > > >>
> > > >> are we happy with it?
>
> > > > It's not clear to me what, if anything, needs to go in the NOTICE file for BSD.
>
>
> > > the consensus was that - for binary dependencies - including the licence
> > > statement in the LICENSE (which for BSD includes the copyright
> > > statement) is sufficient.
>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Does this apply to all 3rd party binary dependencies?
> > >>> This was not my understanding.
> > >>> I thought the NOTICE file was for "required notices"; the BSD license
> > >>> seems to demand one.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, the patch says:
> > >>>
> > >>> "There is no need to additionally include the license text in the NOTICE."
> > >>>
> > >>> which is not clear. It could mean:
> > >>> - don't include anything in NOTICE
> > >>> - only include the product name and Copyright
>
> > >> The second option is what Craig and William agree on, as far as I can tell,
> > >> i.e. the BSD license requires text in both NOTICE and LICENSE.
>
>
> > reproducing the text in the LICENSE is sufficient to satisfy the license
>
> > so long as it's an unmodified, listing in the NOTICE is unnecessary
>
>
> >> Why are binaries different?
>
>
> unmodified binaries necessarily retain their original copyright notice
> (if any)
>
>> I've no idea what you mean by that.
in order to move a copyright notice from a binary, the binary must be
modified. therefore, any unmodified binary must retain it's original
copyright notice (if any).
> >> If the binary distribution *includes* the 3rd party library (rather
> >> than just depending on it), surely the content of the NOTICE depends
> >> on what the 3rd party library documentation says is "required".
>
> >> What about unmodified source? Does that have to be shown in the NOTICE file?
>
>
> no (just LICENSE)
>
>> So why does the HTTPD NOTICE example
>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt) mention the PCRE
>> library package?
that's not necessary but does no harm
(don't forget that in the past, policy wasn't so tight or prescriptive
as it is becoming now)
- - robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=wKe3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-59 [WAS Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes
of 3rd party licensing policy?]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
ant elder wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So what is a "required 3rd party notice"?
>>
>
> Great question Sebb, I've raised LEGAL-62 to ask.
it's any 3rd party notice that is required to satisfy the license for
that 3rd party software
some licenses (for example, AL2.0) require that some text (for example
"This product includes software developed by the Apache Software
Foundation (http://www.apache.org)") - the notice - is distributed with
the software. this is the base use case for "required third party notice".
- - robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=9cym
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-59 [WAS Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes of
3rd party licensing policy?]
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So what is a "required 3rd party notice"?
>
Great question Sebb, I've raised LEGAL-62 to ask.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-59 [WAS Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes of
3rd party licensing policy?]
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> > > On 22/08/2009, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>> sebb wrote:
> > > > On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > >> Hash: SHA512
> > > >>
> > > >> no one has commented on the patch for
> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59
> > > >>
> > > >> are we happy with it?
> >
> > > > It's not clear to me what, if anything, needs to go in the NOTICE file for BSD.
> >
> >
> > > the consensus was that - for binary dependencies - including the licence
> > > statement in the LICENSE (which for BSD includes the copyright
> > > statement) is sufficient.
> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Does this apply to all 3rd party binary dependencies?
> > >>> This was not my understanding.
> > >>> I thought the NOTICE file was for "required notices"; the BSD license
> > >>> seems to demand one.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, the patch says:
> > >>>
> > >>> "There is no need to additionally include the license text in the NOTICE."
> > >>>
> > >>> which is not clear. It could mean:
> > >>> - don't include anything in NOTICE
> > >>> - only include the product name and Copyright
> >
> > >> The second option is what Craig and William agree on, as far as I can tell,
> > >> i.e. the BSD license requires text in both NOTICE and LICENSE.
> >
> >
> > reproducing the text in the LICENSE is sufficient to satisfy the license
> >
> > so long as it's an unmodified, listing in the NOTICE is unnecessary
> >
> >
> >> Why are binaries different?
>
>
> unmodified binaries necessarily retain their original copyright notice
> (if any)
I've no idea what you mean by that.
>
> >> If the binary distribution *includes* the 3rd party library (rather
> >> than just depending on it), surely the content of the NOTICE depends
> >> on what the 3rd party library documentation says is "required".
> >
> >> What about unmodified source? Does that have to be shown in the NOTICE file?
>
>
> no (just LICENSE)
So why does the HTTPD NOTICE example
(http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt) mention the PCRE
library package?
> when a source file is modified to move a copyright notice, the copyright
> notice must be added to the NOTICE
The page
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice-other
says:
"The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
third-party notices. The NOTICE file may also include copyright
notices moved from source files submitted to the ASF."
So what is a "required 3rd party notice"?
>
> - - robert
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJKj9PHAAoJEHl6NpRAqILL13kP/id/SFfqTlXnvB3/LfNHNJ19
> RK0wXLKFjT91O0BZlnDPBYViRdLXiisWhQPw8XpR9XjwC23nZYCEza8OcO6oTOYI
> RYZxG1ybVPZVnf6XTXSwB54pxnANpX2AlgouRsz/3PK32foX06KI33+QwBE+r0Cw
> hg+MFEXvk2HHGv8l5k0ZaKaS3uUBbggzn/TK+MvqTH+nBtxCPe7kZftuAaDTTR0D
> D/ZASmL0d2NRU/LSkrTcDUk5y35j9PHNWX2rgI71CdM16mzBMOZbmiQAjF+R888b
> lVddhtiAbCzakMXffrTEAAK62k7zh0Nv9A/7kBBSBcBemwToWb64wJW5QtMs/c+/
> wqFEImTIgDHLQ/aW5EQr/c+VOP9VYkCv/gBdZURZ51EfaS0CKuHRWM+7HacsOEYl
> MKROi8brvds6haoxJ+NmYIM+JBRuRrWfbVc4w1Lx7Z3tTHLCiWR4Uezl612CZ053
> oz0suU/FNawbLUn9cmW8HmvVoAYMRKAOJRd8Jj/S0rr9TKKDEyk7s6AcWzeJ5Fpi
> +y6lyfUba7sgnuUKe8oIEFzFIaCWi2/q/YJfmszfwCmeS03UvyT+Mcz2nqhKx6cK
> Fs3aB+ONPG6WM1kaof54SrZvlugsXtC/WnR3wC46MM/gXhF9aG3oCOXTgJtSD4qo
> KbvDdOPuM8d2j92rxWyi
> =MMiH
>
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-59 [WAS Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes
of 3rd party licensing policy?]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
sebb wrote:
> On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 22/08/2009, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>>>> sebb wrote:
> > > On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > >> Hash: SHA512
> > >>
> > >> no one has commented on the patch for
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59
> > >>
> > >> are we happy with it?
>
> > > It's not clear to me what, if anything, needs to go in the NOTICE file for BSD.
>
>
> > the consensus was that - for binary dependencies - including the licence
> > statement in the LICENSE (which for BSD includes the copyright
> > statement) is sufficient.
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Does this apply to all 3rd party binary dependencies?
> >>> This was not my understanding.
> >>> I thought the NOTICE file was for "required notices"; the BSD license
> >>> seems to demand one.
> >>>
> >>> Also, the patch says:
> >>>
> >>> "There is no need to additionally include the license text in the NOTICE."
> >>>
> >>> which is not clear. It could mean:
> >>> - don't include anything in NOTICE
> >>> - only include the product name and Copyright
>
> >> The second option is what Craig and William agree on, as far as I can tell,
> >> i.e. the BSD license requires text in both NOTICE and LICENSE.
>
>
> reproducing the text in the LICENSE is sufficient to satisfy the license
>
> so long as it's an unmodified, listing in the NOTICE is unnecessary
>
>
>> Why are binaries different?
unmodified binaries necessarily retain their original copyright notice
(if any)
>> If the binary distribution *includes* the 3rd party library (rather
>> than just depending on it), surely the content of the NOTICE depends
>> on what the 3rd party library documentation says is "required".
>
>> What about unmodified source? Does that have to be shown in the NOTICE file?
no (just LICENSE)
when a source file is modified to move a copyright notice, the copyright
notice must be added to the NOTICE
- - robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=MMiH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-59 [WAS Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes of
3rd party licensing policy?]
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> sebb wrote:
> > On 22/08/2009, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
>
> > sebb wrote:
> > > On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > >> Hash: SHA512
> > >>
> > >> no one has commented on the patch for
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59
> > >>
> > >> are we happy with it?
> >
> > > It's not clear to me what, if anything, needs to go in the NOTICE file for BSD.
> >
> >
> > the consensus was that - for binary dependencies - including the licence
> > statement in the LICENSE (which for BSD includes the copyright
> > statement) is sufficient.
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Does this apply to all 3rd party binary dependencies?
> >>> This was not my understanding.
> >>> I thought the NOTICE file was for "required notices"; the BSD license
> >>> seems to demand one.
> >>>
> >>> Also, the patch says:
> >>>
> >>> "There is no need to additionally include the license text in the NOTICE."
> >>>
> >>> which is not clear. It could mean:
> >>> - don't include anything in NOTICE
> >>> - only include the product name and Copyright
> >
> >> The second option is what Craig and William agree on, as far as I can tell,
> >> i.e. the BSD license requires text in both NOTICE and LICENSE.
>
>
> reproducing the text in the LICENSE is sufficient to satisfy the license
>
> so long as it's an unmodified, listing in the NOTICE is unnecessary
>
Why are binaries different?
If the binary distribution *includes* the 3rd party library (rather
than just depending on it), surely the content of the NOTICE depends
on what the 3rd party library documentation says is "required".
What about unmodified source? Does that have to be shown in the NOTICE file?
> >> That also agrees with what I thought, but does not agree unambiguously
> >> with the patch.
>
>
> i know of no formal apache policy requirement to list copyrights for
> unmodified binary dependencies in the NOTICE
By my reading of the JIRA issue you are in disagreement with Craig and William.
>
> - - robert
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJKj8pGAAoJEHl6NpRAqILLg5cP+wd+nnfz/597tH/q16SovuNR
> QN9nrHGnw6hIcKC65eROeqEAwQsJkL2HY2mg0ppUrjAvEgXlAx+Yn6LnuWaS/ut8
> sf/1HoT6qqKYvgsai21JvV7ehy6TMPC4wcGbKE26T6rUE26zRvaPvKJf0GXyEtA3
> XP4czLeXssugpjA9t2sNoOkAM+YpKVTeFPvNdnYy7nkRzshC4LmXcQdU3bOFD7yz
> w72WRs2ktKvKBVTGn08Xl1gYwgF848FMR6R7kBVNvbobFa+Ygc6A4BWPuBbUljjT
> 2FjgLnDzmy34fwrlU2mzdtLPTn3biiavp2cdN3uxqSjp61ZHEr1Qly+qIHD6fgeI
> dVWwGJT4s8EKdaBipm0je5gMMrnwdLZinGhkQ//1swvtf0d82ebuRLp38E4lUGZt
> QD/WVKGZfU9vGYgAt7iZju6OZszSJmjAQPEjQTpQVq/zkkbMRKM5XidP+YTk+of/
> f39b9C2x7XV2mNXxnpvG7v0BjdqFK8rNNu5027Pqh5i10pZ+z8tNohiVzsa6WPeJ
> lh474bJffYho5VzJAgGjrcpiJt5L6lGZ5e2RmRdFn9QsiTGo6mUtOAtV9/4WCfL2
> WQXmpYyjnH7GL+HGyYrSAvNAaChjOoNhhT9fOLXlIrySmA/Lq8Yt1xRTyiX/qr3z
> vF8xkltYHR0o/4z29cMi
> =Nh3A
>
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-59 [WAS Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes
of 3rd party licensing policy?]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
sebb wrote:
> On 22/08/2009, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> sebb wrote:
> > On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA512
> >>
> >> no one has commented on the patch for
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59
> >>
> >> are we happy with it?
>
> > It's not clear to me what, if anything, needs to go in the NOTICE file for BSD.
>
>
> the consensus was that - for binary dependencies - including the licence
> statement in the LICENSE (which for BSD includes the copyright
> statement) is sufficient.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does this apply to all 3rd party binary dependencies?
>>> This was not my understanding.
>>> I thought the NOTICE file was for "required notices"; the BSD license
>>> seems to demand one.
>>>
>>> Also, the patch says:
>>>
>>> "There is no need to additionally include the license text in the NOTICE."
>>>
>>> which is not clear. It could mean:
>>> - don't include anything in NOTICE
>>> - only include the product name and Copyright
>
>> The second option is what Craig and William agree on, as far as I can tell,
>> i.e. the BSD license requires text in both NOTICE and LICENSE.
reproducing the text in the LICENSE is sufficient to satisfy the license
so long as it's an unmodified, listing in the NOTICE is unnecessary
>> That also agrees with what I thought, but does not agree unambiguously
>> with the patch.
i know of no formal apache policy requirement to list copyrights for
unmodified binary dependencies in the NOTICE
- - robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=Nh3A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-59 [WAS Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes of
3rd party licensing policy?]
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 22/08/2009, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> >
> > sebb wrote:
> > > On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > >> Hash: SHA512
> > >>
> > >> no one has commented on the patch for
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59
> > >>
> > >> are we happy with it?
> > >
> > > It's not clear to me what, if anything, needs to go in the NOTICE file for BSD.
> >
> >
> > the consensus was that - for binary dependencies - including the licence
> > statement in the LICENSE (which for BSD includes the copyright
> > statement) is sufficient.
> >
>
>
> Does this apply to all 3rd party binary dependencies?
> This was not my understanding.
> I thought the NOTICE file was for "required notices"; the BSD license
> seems to demand one.
>
> Also, the patch says:
>
> "There is no need to additionally include the license text in the NOTICE."
>
> which is not clear. It could mean:
> - don't include anything in NOTICE
> - only include the product name and Copyright
The second option is what Craig and William agree on, as far as I can tell,
i.e. the BSD license requires text in both NOTICE and LICENSE.
That also agrees with what I thought, but does not agree unambiguously
with the patch.
>
> > - - robert
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> >
> > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJKj7lYAAoJEHl6NpRAqILLw3MP/1p6yeyxjiGPOk+LVYD6iy+q
> > u22eHO+RImroMSHu+t4TdZDgiAEA8856j0FRmPhcKt9XPS0D79Kza6ZF9y1bdvVh
> > PSMo6SZ2faLJ6ybm/ui7KbuoK9TdV+3aUlccr9ew21Ix7XEBsH3fqbt3aijNvYW2
> > gZ5IY2A4h/iUNtJNReWKBTq031BKXx/tz3Y6rp1eRfZDgC80HekOICeYKMjlrx4b
> > 4soZUFkjznmij7ZNVorY0284UtMwjZUe2xujQMQyLEg3mRoX6aao7vR3qwVcNmqX
> > 2HKDOpBdzYLioTInmdztzOxF1PcOrr4I2Bq9THQGdS9Xc7nmktbFq8N8r7VhOAVV
> > G0kyT1sHGCKIJgyjp8+atnPK3dJIXVemSa0WmeqiUFOP0oB9sW8nY/3mW5qxzZ04
> > BxJI/TNKIGQn2Q5iG1IaGV+cbdFh0NQR+oIl55ZP5LoDaSTftBInlFugjtyq1WSw
> > CGgfgJSLhQqKVbjMK+9QJVlS+jL4+GZMT1emPkliopq+kS8roukKnxUeFrL5M5nc
> > LuqaoQKfDS4mgJdzwxtViejmje+ZVaMse6eZ4aWGwpXTDCUWxJMiA0P80F3E6l0f
> > pdGn26yTEDpirsDB3yPje16th9r+JVBm7S1SX+Ak4mFE1IkEI3yYiCbGcoZcJmtn
> > eczNLMitn8OOJk1HRFHs
> > =FA/R
> >
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-59 [WAS Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes of
3rd party licensing policy?]
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
> sebb wrote:
> > On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA512
> >>
> >> no one has commented on the patch for
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59
> >>
> >> are we happy with it?
> >
> > It's not clear to me what, if anything, needs to go in the NOTICE file for BSD.
>
>
> the consensus was that - for binary dependencies - including the licence
> statement in the LICENSE (which for BSD includes the copyright
> statement) is sufficient.
>
Does this apply to all 3rd party binary dependencies?
This was not my understanding.
I thought the NOTICE file was for "required notices"; the BSD license
seems to demand one.
Also, the patch says:
"There is no need to additionally include the license text in the NOTICE."
which is not clear. It could mean:
- don't include anything in NOTICE
- only include the product name and Copyright
> - - robert
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJKj7lYAAoJEHl6NpRAqILLw3MP/1p6yeyxjiGPOk+LVYD6iy+q
> u22eHO+RImroMSHu+t4TdZDgiAEA8856j0FRmPhcKt9XPS0D79Kza6ZF9y1bdvVh
> PSMo6SZ2faLJ6ybm/ui7KbuoK9TdV+3aUlccr9ew21Ix7XEBsH3fqbt3aijNvYW2
> gZ5IY2A4h/iUNtJNReWKBTq031BKXx/tz3Y6rp1eRfZDgC80HekOICeYKMjlrx4b
> 4soZUFkjznmij7ZNVorY0284UtMwjZUe2xujQMQyLEg3mRoX6aao7vR3qwVcNmqX
> 2HKDOpBdzYLioTInmdztzOxF1PcOrr4I2Bq9THQGdS9Xc7nmktbFq8N8r7VhOAVV
> G0kyT1sHGCKIJgyjp8+atnPK3dJIXVemSa0WmeqiUFOP0oB9sW8nY/3mW5qxzZ04
> BxJI/TNKIGQn2Q5iG1IaGV+cbdFh0NQR+oIl55ZP5LoDaSTftBInlFugjtyq1WSw
> CGgfgJSLhQqKVbjMK+9QJVlS+jL4+GZMT1emPkliopq+kS8roukKnxUeFrL5M5nc
> LuqaoQKfDS4mgJdzwxtViejmje+ZVaMse6eZ4aWGwpXTDCUWxJMiA0P80F3E6l0f
> pdGn26yTEDpirsDB3yPje16th9r+JVBm7S1SX+Ak4mFE1IkEI3yYiCbGcoZcJmtn
> eczNLMitn8OOJk1HRFHs
> =FA/R
>
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-59 [WAS Re: Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes
of 3rd party licensing policy?]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
sebb wrote:
> On 22/08/2009, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> no one has commented on the patch for
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59
>>
>> are we happy with it?
>
> It's not clear to me what, if anything, needs to go in the NOTICE file for BSD.
the consensus was that - for binary dependencies - including the licence
statement in the LICENSE (which for BSD includes the copyright
statement) is sufficient.
- - robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=FA/R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org