You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> on 2009/07/29 16:29:38 UTC
How to handle translated code in NOTICE, LICENSE
We are about to release version 2.0 of commons-math, which includes some
code that is derived from C and Fortran sources. The original sources
are licensed under ASL-compatible licenses. We have added appropriate
notices to our NOTICE file. Our question is a) do we need to reproduce
the licenses in LICENSE and b) if we do, what do we tell the user about
how the LICENSE relates to their use of our code?
Currently, we say this
--------------------
APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
conditions of the following licenses.
--------------------------
That does not seem correct to me, since we are not actually distributing
the original sources. I have proposed this:
----------------------------
APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
are reproduced below.
-----------------------------
Is the second OK or is yet a third thing correct?
Thanks!
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: How to handle translated code in NOTICE, LICENSE
Posted by Phil Steitz <ps...@apache.org>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> IANAL.
>
> To answer this question I'd have to see the original licenses. For
> example, take a look at section 4 of our Apache License 2.0 that
> describes requirements for redistribution of derivative works. If
> there is a similar redistribution and attribution section you would
> have to follow it.
>
> So if the original work were licensed under the Apache License 2.0,
> you would need to include the license in the LICENSE file of the
> derivative work, and in the NOTICE describe the copyright notices of
> the original work. And if the original work has its own NOTICE, then
> these original NOTICEs also need to be included in the derivative NOTICE.
>
> What I'd add to the notice below is a description of exactly which
> commons subcomponents are derived from exactly which original works.
Thanks, Craig!
We are planning on appending all of the original licenses and we have
added the NOTICES. I agree we should make it explicit which classes
depend on which original sources and we will do that.
Phil
>
> Craig
>
> On Jul 29, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> We are about to release version 2.0 of commons-math, which includes
>> some code that is derived from C and Fortran sources. The original
>> sources are licensed under ASL-compatible licenses. We have added
>> appropriate notices to our NOTICE file. Our question is a) do we
>> need to reproduce the licenses in LICENSE and b) if we do, what do
>> we tell the user about how the LICENSE relates to their use of our code?
>>
>> Currently, we say this
>> --------------------
>>
>> APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
>>
>> The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents with
>> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
>> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
>> conditions of the following licenses.
>>
>> --------------------------
>>
>> That does not seem correct to me, since we are not actually
>> distributing the original sources. I have proposed this:
>>
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
>>
>> The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
>> whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
>> in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
>> are reproduced below.
>>
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> Is the second OK or is yet a third thing correct?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: How to handle translated code in NOTICE, LICENSE
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Phil,
IANAL.
To answer this question I'd have to see the original licenses. For
example, take a look at section 4 of our Apache License 2.0 that
describes requirements for redistribution of derivative works. If
there is a similar redistribution and attribution section you would
have to follow it.
So if the original work were licensed under the Apache License 2.0,
you would need to include the license in the LICENSE file of the
derivative work, and in the NOTICE describe the copyright notices of
the original work. And if the original work has its own NOTICE, then
these original NOTICEs also need to be included in the derivative
NOTICE.
What I'd add to the notice below is a description of exactly which
commons subcomponents are derived from exactly which original works.
Craig
On Jul 29, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> We are about to release version 2.0 of commons-math, which includes
> some code that is derived from C and Fortran sources. The original
> sources are licensed under ASL-compatible licenses. We have added
> appropriate notices to our NOTICE file. Our question is a) do we
> need to reproduce the licenses in LICENSE and b) if we do, what do
> we tell the user about how the LICENSE relates to their use of our
> code?
>
> Currently, we say this
> --------------------
>
> APACHE COMMONS MATH SUBCOMPONENTS:
>
> The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
> with
> separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source
> code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
> conditions of the following licenses.
>
> --------------------------
>
> That does not seem correct to me, since we are not actually
> distributing the original sources. I have proposed this:
>
> ----------------------------
>
> APACHE COMMONS MATH DERIVATIVE WORKS
>
> The Apache commons-math library includes a number of subcomponents
> whose implementation is derived from orgininal sources written
> in C or Fortran. License terms of the original sources
> are reproduced below.
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Is the second OK or is yet a third thing correct?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!