You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> on 2018/01/15 15:47:09 UTC
Attribution requirement - NOTICE or LICENSE?
Forking general@incubator thread (tnx Justin) to legal-discuss
I think your best practice advise on NOTICE vs LICENSE might be
appropriate here for our:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-server/blob/master/NOTICE#L12
(I think legally we are on clear ground, but let me know if you think
a license review is appropriate)
Our NOTICE refer to the JAXB classes generated from a schema included
as Appendix the upstream OGF PDF (yes..)
https://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.98.pdf#page=42
and the PDF's license says about derivative work:
> ...derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works.
Now the problem is that the rest of the "this paragraph" protects the
standard PDF file itself, using confusing language like "this
document" and preventing changes to the PDF (the PDF would NOT be
open source and can't be in a Apache release); our new code is derived
work snd thus "without restriction" and that can be given the regular
Apache License 2.0.
From this I think it could be misleading if the OGF text was added as
license header to our derived *.java files. But perhaps combined with
the ASF header and a clarification of what we consider as "This
document" and "derivative work"?
As far as I see there is no LICENSE additions implied here (none of
the code would be covered by it) - there is just an attribution
requirement. Apache License already have attribution requirements, if
you put it in NOTICE.
Perhaps the OGF notice could be moved to a separate file next to the
*.java files and just referenced from NOTICE? But then you would not
be required to propagate it (NOTICE text is not legally binding) and
so they would break the OGF attribution requirement if they forgot the
separate file (e.g. in a binary JAR).
Views? :)
On 14 January 2018 at 04:51, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 binding. A couple of minor issues than need to be fixed for the next release.
>
> I checked both release:
> - incubating in release name
> - signatures and hashes good
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - server LICENSE needs some additions (missing one license)
> - both NOTICE files probably have too much information
> - all source code has ASF headers
> - No unexpended binaries
> - Can compile successfully
>
> The servers release NOTICE file incorrectly lists 2 licenses, IMO they should be in LICENSE not NOTICE.
>
> The server license file missing the license for [1]. Note that the license terms state that the full license text needs to be included in any redistribution/derivative work.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. ./taverna-server-usagerecord/src/main/xsd/xmlds.xsd
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Attribution requirement - NOTICE or LICENSE?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
My understanding is that the specification document that Stian initially
linked to [5] has a copyright and license that is only referring to the
specification document and not implementations of that specification. The
implementation is under ALv2. And thus, the usual reasons for deciding
whether to put an attribution in LICENSE or NOTICE do not apply. IMO,
unless there are other words in the specification owner's documentation
that specify how implementations should give attribution to specification
authors or if there is a standard convention for giving such attribution
to specifications, no attribution is actually required, so we are talking
about how to be nice and give attribution given ASF policy on LICENSE,
NOTICE, and that L & N need to be in Maven Jars.
I agree that not all attributions go in NOTICE so I would lean against
putting this attribution in NOTICE. I recommended the README and still
think that's right for the source package. For a Maven Jar, it might be
useful to see how other Maven jars gave attributions to spec authors, but
otherwise, my idea (and I am definitely not an expert on Maven) would be
to give attribution in the POM description. IMO, the attribution does not
need to be the entire license of the spec document, but instead something
like:
Implementation of GFD-R-P .098 from
https://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.98.pdf
Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex
[5] https://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.98.pdf#page=42
On 1/15/18, 6:29 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I guess I'm confused as we're not bundling anything of a different
>> license.. and if I add it to LICENSE would it not look like it's a
>> different license?
>
>What license is this file under? [1] Looks to me to be the W3C software
>license. So that would count as a different license would it not?
>
>Take this file [2] it contains this text:
>
> * The classes in this package are derived from the XML schema <a href=
> *
>"https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.o
>gf.org%2Furf%2F2003%2F09%2Furl.xml&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd65
>f2b2480cb49020e3708d55c890ba8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7
>C636516666032500169&sdata=XbZ0AImIWMaOqO%2BnOMKGgmY24QCLa0wmSq2MaG9N50E%3D
>&reserved=0">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F
>%2Fschemas.ogf.org%2Furf%2F2003%2F09%2Furl.xml&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40ado
>be.com%7Cd65f2b2480cb49020e3708d55c890ba8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178dece
>e1%7C0%7C0%7C636516666032500169&sdata=XbZ0AImIWMaOqO%2BnOMKGgmY24QCLa0wmSq
>2MaG9N50E%3D&reserved=0</a>
> * <!-- NOTE: typo "url" instead of "urf" upstream -->
> * <p>
> * <blockquote> Usage Record Working Group XML Schema definition (GFD.98)
> * <p>
> * Copyright (C) Open Grid Forum (2006-2007). All Rights Reserved.
> * <p>
>
>Given it’s derived from a file under another license were you thinking it
>be also under that original license? Or if not then why have those
>notices in NOTICE at all?
>
>The attribution requirement is part of a license. If you’re not bundling
>anything under that license then there no need to include it, if you are
>bundling something under that license then it seems IMO that LICENSE is
>the best place to put it. Or am I missing something here?
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>1. ./taverna-server-usagerecord/src/main/xsd/xmlds.xsd
>2.
>./taverna-server-usagerecord/src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/server/usage
>record/xml/urf/package-info.java
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Re: Attribution requirement - NOTICE or LICENSE?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Sounds like you have a plan. FWIW, I do not read that paragraph as
applying to implementations, only to translations of the spec and schema,
and to any other documents describing how to write an implementation (but
not the implementation itself) like a tutorial or book. That's because
those kinds of documents would be a "derivative work" of the spec or
schema. My logic says we are claiming the implementation is not a
"derivative work" of the spec and schema in order to give it an ALv2
license. So their requirements on "derivative works" does not apply to
your code and jar.
Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex
On 1/17/18, 7:50 AM, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>On 16 January 2018 at 17:24, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Stian, where is the BSD-like text you are referring to? I am not
>>seeing
>> it in the spec or schema.
>
>From
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgist.gith
>ub.com%2Fstain%2F19474ea4ecb490964d89186de24a0aec%23file-usf2-xsd-L12&data
>=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4f6f628961c4404c8bf008d55dc222d0%7Cfa7b1b5
>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636518011521430138&sdata=d65%2B7Kcu2Y5
>8pDKK4r%2BelJmzy20ngBX63M0MeVW2twA%3D&reserved=0
>(copied out from PDF)
>
>(...) derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
>assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
>distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
>provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
>included as references to the derived portions on all such copies and
>derivative works. (..)
>
>This is permissive like the BSD license, in a way more open. As Justin
>pointed out the "references" here should mean we can put it in a
>separate file and don't have to put it in the license headers.
>
>A challenge hereis "this paragraph" include things both before and
>after in (..) and those have some non-open clause as they refer to the
>"OGF document" - so it would suit poorly in the license header of the
>individual files (as you would typically do with BSD license). But in
>a separate LICENSE file which clearly is not "the OGF Document" then
>it should be OK.
>
>
>Thanks for all your help, folks! I'll merge my PR with splitting out
>to LICENSE.GFD files.
>
>
>--
>Stian Soiland-Reyes
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%
>2F0000-0001-9842-9718&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4f6f628961c4404c
>8bf008d55dc222d0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636518011521
>430138&sdata=QRJkN2xl1L2z7SJQsaL8oQtj6PSYAq9gmlsfg6jZ%2FsY%3D&reserved=0
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Re: Attribution requirement - NOTICE or LICENSE?
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
On 16 January 2018 at 17:24, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Stian, where is the BSD-like text you are referring to? I am not seeing
> it in the spec or schema.
From
https://gist.github.com/stain/19474ea4ecb490964d89186de24a0aec#file-usf2-xsd-L12
(copied out from PDF)
(...) derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included as references to the derived portions on all such copies and
derivative works. (..)
This is permissive like the BSD license, in a way more open. As Justin
pointed out the "references" here should mean we can put it in a
separate file and don't have to put it in the license headers.
A challenge hereis "this paragraph" include things both before and
after in (..) and those have some non-open clause as they refer to the
"OGF document" - so it would suit poorly in the license header of the
individual files (as you would typically do with BSD license). But in
a separate LICENSE file which clearly is not "the OGF Document" then
it should be OK.
Thanks for all your help, folks! I'll merge my PR with splitting out
to LICENSE.GFD files.
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Attribution requirement - NOTICE or LICENSE?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 1/16/18, 2:51 AM, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Take this file [2] it contains this text:
>>
>> * The classes in this package are derived from the XML schema <a href=
>> *
>>"https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.
>>ogf.org%2Furf%2F2003%2F09%2Furl.xml&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc
>>8f047a5d1994780c3d908d55ccf3af3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C
>>0%7C636516967534984197&sdata=gLpqQlxI4d4AZCIvkUr5lHH44P%2BKvaI6XVNHrBa%2F
>>qHw%3D&reserved=0">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt
>>p%3A%2F%2Fschemas.ogf.org%2Furf%2F2003%2F09%2Furl.xml&data=02%7C01%7Cahar
>>ui%40adobe.com%7Cc8f047a5d1994780c3d908d55ccf3af3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed
>>2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516967535140454&sdata=xCNt4nGcR%2Bu5DFQMkQxu3cwK
>>RVlPxpZ2pzs6A5wCrqU%3D&reserved=0</a>
>> * <!-- NOTE: typo "url" instead of "urf" upstream -->
>> * <p>
>> * <blockquote> Usage Record Working Group XML Schema definition
>>(GFD.98)
>> * <p>
>> * Copyright (C) Open Grid Forum (2006-2007). All Rights Reserved.
>> * <p>
>>
>> Given it’s derived from a file under another license were you thinking
>>it be also under that original license? Or if not then why have those
>>notices in NOTICE at all?
>
>No, from the full license, that derived work would not be under the
>same OGF Document license (which forbid changes to itself), only under
>the BSD-like part for "derivative works" which are "without
>restriction of any kind".
>
>Sadly to comply with the text we have to include the full "paragraph"
>somewhere -- which do include the OGF Document license. If I do that
>in the file headers, then for third-party it would easily look like
>the source code again is under the OGF Document license.
Stian, where is the BSD-like text you are referring to? I am not seeing
it in the spec or schema.
Thanks,
-Alex
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Attribution requirement - NOTICE or LICENSE?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> So perhaps something like in:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-server/compare/OGF-LICENSE <https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-server/compare/OGF-LICENSE>
Looks good to me. There could also be other ways of dealing with this but that makes it a lot clearer to what is going on, includes the full text of any licenses involved and removes the unnecessary text from the notice file.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Attribution requirement - NOTICE or LICENSE?
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
On 16 January 2018 at 02:29, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> What license is this file under? [1] Looks to me to be the W3C software license. So that would count as a different license would it not?
Yes, [1] aka xmlds.xsd is W3C Software license, that is already
acknowledge in the LICENSE. I'll add a LICENSE.W3C.software.txt to
include the full text.
> Take this file [2] it contains this text:
>
> * The classes in this package are derived from the XML schema <a href=
> * "http://schemas.ogf.org/urf/2003/09/url.xml">http://schemas.ogf.org/urf/2003/09/url.xml</a>
> * <!-- NOTE: typo "url" instead of "urf" upstream -->
> * <p>
> * <blockquote> Usage Record Working Group XML Schema definition (GFD.98)
> * <p>
> * Copyright (C) Open Grid Forum (2006-2007). All Rights Reserved.
> * <p>
>
> Given it’s derived from a file under another license were you thinking it be also under that original license? Or if not then why have those notices in NOTICE at all?
No, from the full license, that derived work would not be under the
same OGF Document license (which forbid changes to itself), only under
the BSD-like part for "derivative works" which are "without
restriction of any kind".
Sadly to comply with the text we have to include the full "paragraph"
somewhere -- which do include the OGF Document license. If I do that
in the file headers, then for third-party it would easily look like
the source code again is under the OGF Document license.
> The attribution requirement is part of a license. If you’re not bundling anything under that license then there no need to include it, if you are bundling something under that license then it seems IMO that LICENSE is the best place to put it. Or am I missing something here?
OK, so attribution requirement is the license here basically. and here
we are only including the derived work. So then it should go into
LICENSE.
So perhaps something like in:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-server/compare/OGF-LICENSE
?
tl;dr:
NOTICE goes back to ASF stuff only.
taverna-server-usagerecords/.../META-INF/LICENSE adds at end (after
the W3C reference);
+taverna-server-usagerecords contains derivative work
+based on Open Grid Forum (OGF) Documents.
+
+For their original copyright notices, see
+LICENSE.GFD.98.txt and LICENSE.GFD.204
Upper-level LICENSE the same, but refers to "corresponding META-INF"
to avoid the long path.
And then META-INF/LICENSE.GFD.*.txt contain:
>org.apache.taverna.server.usagerecord.xml.urf2 classes are
>derivate work from Open Grid Forum (OGF) Document
>https://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.204.pdf
>
>Copyright notice of the original OGF document:
>
> Copyright © Open Grid Forum (2006-2013). Some Rights Reserved.
> This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others,
> ...
Would that work? It seems to me to be in compliance - someone
downstream deleting LICENSE.OGF.* would no longer be in compliance,
and the full copyright is included (even though the thing they
copyright is NOT included)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Attribution requirement - NOTICE or LICENSE?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I guess I'm confused as we're not bundling anything of a different
> license.. and if I add it to LICENSE would it not look like it's a
> different license?
What license is this file under? [1] Looks to me to be the W3C software license. So that would count as a different license would it not?
Take this file [2] it contains this text:
* The classes in this package are derived from the XML schema <a href=
* "http://schemas.ogf.org/urf/2003/09/url.xml">http://schemas.ogf.org/urf/2003/09/url.xml</a>
* <!-- NOTE: typo "url" instead of "urf" upstream -->
* <p>
* <blockquote> Usage Record Working Group XML Schema definition (GFD.98)
* <p>
* Copyright (C) Open Grid Forum (2006-2007). All Rights Reserved.
* <p>
Given it’s derived from a file under another license were you thinking it be also under that original license? Or if not then why have those notices in NOTICE at all?
The attribution requirement is part of a license. If you’re not bundling anything under that license then there no need to include it, if you are bundling something under that license then it seems IMO that LICENSE is the best place to put it. Or am I missing something here?
Thanks,
Justin
1. ./taverna-server-usagerecord/src/main/xsd/xmlds.xsd
2. ./taverna-server-usagerecord/src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/server/usagerecord/xml/urf/package-info.java
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Attribution requirement - NOTICE or LICENSE?
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
I guess I'm confused as we're not bundling anything of a different
license.. and if I add it to LICENSE would it not look like it's a
different license?
On 15 January 2018 at 21:43, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Agree that there is no hard requirement to use NOTICE here as upstream does not mandate Apache License. However NOTICE is also intended exactly for required attributions..
>
> See the notes on bundling permissive software [1] and what should go in a notice file [2], note that it’s "legally required notifications which are not satisfied by either the text of LICENSE”. and [3] again note "Apache releases should contain a copy of each license, usually contained in the LICENSE document. For many licenses this is a sufficient notice."
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
> 3. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Attribution requirement - NOTICE or LICENSE?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Agree that there is no hard requirement to use NOTICE here as upstream does not mandate Apache License. However NOTICE is also intended exactly for required attributions..
See the notes on bundling permissive software [1] and what should go in a notice file [2], note that it’s "legally required notifications which are not satisfied by either the text of LICENSE”. and [3] again note "Apache releases should contain a copy of each license, usually contained in the LICENSE document. For many licenses this is a sufficient notice."
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
3. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Attribution requirement - NOTICE or LICENSE?
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
Agree that there is no hard requirement to use NOTICE here as upstream does
not mandate Apache License. However NOTICE is also intended exactly for
required attributions..
Java/Maven specifically below:
README is not included in JARs that ASF deposits into Maven Central, and I
don't see why make it harder for downstream users by hiding it away from
NOTICE?
But perhaps it can stay in sub-package/src/../META-INF/NOTICE for the jar
(which we already do), and then the source distro upper NOTICE can just
refer to that? Then it is reduces noise and is still fairly clear that
removing said module would remove the need for that NOTICE section.
Anyone who tries to be AL compliant by naively concatenating
*.jar/META-INF/NOTICE
(as we might ourselves have to do in our own WAR file) would then still be
safe.
On 15 Jan 2018 4:31 pm, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> IMO, the terms did not specify the licensing of implementations or how
> implementations should give them attribution. Unless there is a standard
> way of doing that, I'd say that attribution should go in README. The
> terms did not specify using a NOTICE file, and ASF policy is that LICENSE
> is only supposed to contain LICENSES that apply to the contents, and I
> think README has been used for other attributions and license descriptions
> of unbundled dependencies.
>
> Of course, I could be wrong...
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/15/18, 7:47 AM, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Forking general@incubator thread (tnx Justin) to legal-discuss
> >
> >I think your best practice advise on NOTICE vs LICENSE might be
> >appropriate here for our:
> >
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >m%2Fapache%2Fincubator-taverna-server%2Fblob%
> 2Fmaster%2FNOTICE%23L12&data=
> >02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C040bf6c4b8c74016e30208d55c2f
> 4a76%7Cfa7b1b5a
> >7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516280537011374&
> sdata=HnMVtYpR5iQ0Q2
> >ds%2BnZfez38nugIk6vTzAGmA0Iid%2Fs%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >(I think legally we are on clear ground, but let me know if you think
> >a license review is appropriate)
> >
> >
> >Our NOTICE refer to the JAXB classes generated from a schema included
> >as Appendix the upstream OGF PDF (yes..)
> >
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ogf.o
> >rg%2Fdocuments%2FGFD.98.pdf%23page%3D42&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %
> >7C040bf6c4b8c74016e30208d55c2f4a76%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%
> >7C1%7C636516280537011374&sdata=5YHTHOzXV4ozpQct8sYZYaUkBGtImr
> RWhdVO5QF9fD4
> >%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >and the PDF's license says about derivative work:
> >
> >> ...derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist
> >>in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
> >>distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
> >>provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included
> >>on all such copies and derivative works.
> >
> >
> >Now the problem is that the rest of the "this paragraph" protects the
> >standard PDF file itself, using confusing language like "this
> >document" and preventing changes to the PDF (the PDF would NOT be
> >open source and can't be in a Apache release); our new code is derived
> >work snd thus "without restriction" and that can be given the regular
> >Apache License 2.0.
> >
> >From this I think it could be misleading if the OGF text was added as
> >license header to our derived *.java files. But perhaps combined with
> >the ASF header and a clarification of what we consider as "This
> >document" and "derivative work"?
> >
> >
> >As far as I see there is no LICENSE additions implied here (none of
> >the code would be covered by it) - there is just an attribution
> >requirement. Apache License already have attribution requirements, if
> >you put it in NOTICE.
> >
> >Perhaps the OGF notice could be moved to a separate file next to the
> >*.java files and just referenced from NOTICE? But then you would not
> >be required to propagate it (NOTICE text is not legally binding) and
> >so they would break the OGF attribution requirement if they forgot the
> >separate file (e.g. in a binary JAR).
> >
> >
> >Views? :)
> >
> >
> >On 14 January 2018 at 04:51, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> +1 binding. A couple of minor issues than need to be fixed for the next
> >>release.
> >>
> >> I checked both release:
> >> - incubating in release name
> >> - signatures and hashes good
> >> - DISCLAIMER exists
> >> - server LICENSE needs some additions (missing one license)
> >> - both NOTICE files probably have too much information
> >> - all source code has ASF headers
> >> - No unexpended binaries
> >> - Can compile successfully
> >>
> >> The servers release NOTICE file incorrectly lists 2 licenses, IMO they
> >>should be in LICENSE not NOTICE.
> >>
> >> The server license file missing the license for [1]. Note that the
> >>license terms state that the full license text needs to be included in
> >>any redistribution/derivative work.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Justin
> >>
> >> 1. ./taverna-server-usagerecord/src/main/xsd/xmlds.xsd
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Stian Soiland-Reyes
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%
> >2F0000-0001-9842-9718&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C040bf6c4b8c74016
> >e30208d55c2f4a76%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516280537
> >011374&sdata=rFVVPV59EjCioxdtJPRsuwgtSYbVgpc16AhWlZPyMS4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
>
Re: Attribution requirement - NOTICE or LICENSE?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
IMO, the terms did not specify the licensing of implementations or how
implementations should give them attribution. Unless there is a standard
way of doing that, I'd say that attribution should go in README. The
terms did not specify using a NOTICE file, and ASF policy is that LICENSE
is only supposed to contain LICENSES that apply to the contents, and I
think README has been used for other attributions and license descriptions
of unbundled dependencies.
Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex
On 1/15/18, 7:47 AM, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>Forking general@incubator thread (tnx Justin) to legal-discuss
>
>I think your best practice advise on NOTICE vs LICENSE might be
>appropriate here for our:
>
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>m%2Fapache%2Fincubator-taverna-server%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FNOTICE%23L12&data=
>02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C040bf6c4b8c74016e30208d55c2f4a76%7Cfa7b1b5a
>7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516280537011374&sdata=HnMVtYpR5iQ0Q2
>ds%2BnZfez38nugIk6vTzAGmA0Iid%2Fs%3D&reserved=0
>
>(I think legally we are on clear ground, but let me know if you think
>a license review is appropriate)
>
>
>Our NOTICE refer to the JAXB classes generated from a schema included
>as Appendix the upstream OGF PDF (yes..)
>
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ogf.o
>rg%2Fdocuments%2FGFD.98.pdf%23page%3D42&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>7C040bf6c4b8c74016e30208d55c2f4a76%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%
>7C1%7C636516280537011374&sdata=5YHTHOzXV4ozpQct8sYZYaUkBGtImrRWhdVO5QF9fD4
>%3D&reserved=0
>
>and the PDF's license says about derivative work:
>
>> ...derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist
>>in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
>>distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
>>provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included
>>on all such copies and derivative works.
>
>
>Now the problem is that the rest of the "this paragraph" protects the
>standard PDF file itself, using confusing language like "this
>document" and preventing changes to the PDF (the PDF would NOT be
>open source and can't be in a Apache release); our new code is derived
>work snd thus "without restriction" and that can be given the regular
>Apache License 2.0.
>
>From this I think it could be misleading if the OGF text was added as
>license header to our derived *.java files. But perhaps combined with
>the ASF header and a clarification of what we consider as "This
>document" and "derivative work"?
>
>
>As far as I see there is no LICENSE additions implied here (none of
>the code would be covered by it) - there is just an attribution
>requirement. Apache License already have attribution requirements, if
>you put it in NOTICE.
>
>Perhaps the OGF notice could be moved to a separate file next to the
>*.java files and just referenced from NOTICE? But then you would not
>be required to propagate it (NOTICE text is not legally binding) and
>so they would break the OGF attribution requirement if they forgot the
>separate file (e.g. in a binary JAR).
>
>
>Views? :)
>
>
>On 14 January 2018 at 04:51, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> +1 binding. A couple of minor issues than need to be fixed for the next
>>release.
>>
>> I checked both release:
>> - incubating in release name
>> - signatures and hashes good
>> - DISCLAIMER exists
>> - server LICENSE needs some additions (missing one license)
>> - both NOTICE files probably have too much information
>> - all source code has ASF headers
>> - No unexpended binaries
>> - Can compile successfully
>>
>> The servers release NOTICE file incorrectly lists 2 licenses, IMO they
>>should be in LICENSE not NOTICE.
>>
>> The server license file missing the license for [1]. Note that the
>>license terms state that the full license text needs to be included in
>>any redistribution/derivative work.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>> 1. ./taverna-server-usagerecord/src/main/xsd/xmlds.xsd
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Stian Soiland-Reyes
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%
>2F0000-0001-9842-9718&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C040bf6c4b8c74016
>e30208d55c2f4a76%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516280537
>011374&sdata=rFVVPV59EjCioxdtJPRsuwgtSYbVgpc16AhWlZPyMS4%3D&reserved=0
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>