You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org> on 2009/10/12 14:00:57 UTC
Proposal for a new NOTICE file
After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I
realize that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use"
Apache developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on Maven
to build). It seems silly to list Apache under both "include" and "use",
especially since the main point of the NOTICE file is for third-party
notices.
I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor out
the Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections for
third-party notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for framework:
Apache Felix Framework
Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
(http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
I. Included Third-Party Software
This product includes software developed at
The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
II. Used Third-Party Software
This product uses software developed at
The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
This product uses software developed at
The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
III. Overall License Summary
- Apache License 2.0
To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
Apache Felix AAA
Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
(http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
I. Included Third-Party Software
BBB
II. Used Third-Party Software
CCC
III. Overall License Summary
- Apache License 2.0
- DDD
Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and DDD
would list their licenses.
What do you think?
-> richard
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 10/12/09 14:51, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> In general I'm +1, with one exception :)
>
>> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>> Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>
> While the above sentence is true, I personally would read it that the
> project does not know if they have dependencies to other Apache
> software (so for me if someone says "may" I conclude that he doesn't
> know) :) Maybe that's just me not being a native speaker?
>
It does say that because it is general to catch both cases. Your below
sentence only captures the "includes" case, not the "uses" case.
However, I don't care what the template is precisely, I just want to
simplify it.
-> richard
> What about simplifying the sentence along these lines:
> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org) and contains software licensed under
> the Apache License 2.0.
>
> Carsten
>
>
>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
In general I'm +1, with one exception :)
>
> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
> Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
While the above sentence is true, I personally would read it that the
project does not know if they have dependencies to other Apache
software (so for me if someone says "may" I conclude that he doesn't
know) :) Maybe that's just me not being a native speaker?
What about simplifying the sentence along these lines:
This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
(http://www.apache.org) and contains software licensed under
the Apache License 2.0.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by Rob Walker <ro...@ascert.com>.
Seems fine to me
- R
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I
> realize that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use"
> Apache developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on
> Maven to build). It seems silly to list Apache under both "include"
> and "use", especially since the main point of the NOTICE file is for
> third-party notices.
>
> I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor
> out the Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections
> for third-party notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for
> framework:
>
> Apache Felix Framework
> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
> Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>
> I. Included Third-Party Software
>
> This product includes software developed at
> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>
> II. Used Third-Party Software
>
> This product uses software developed at
> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>
> This product uses software developed at
> The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>
> III. Overall License Summary
> - Apache License 2.0
>
> To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
>
> Apache Felix AAA
> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
> Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>
> I. Included Third-Party Software
>
> BBB
>
> II. Used Third-Party Software
>
> CCC
>
> III. Overall License Summary
> - Apache License 2.0
> - DDD
>
> Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and
> DDD would list their licenses.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -> richard
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Sounds pretty good to me. So, should we move forward with it?
-> richard
On 10/13/09 15:05, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ok, then, you got me ;-)
>
> I tried to setup what I had in mind:
>
> * I patched the Felix parent pom (see FELIX-1747) attachement
> * I created a modified Web Console project with adapted
> license and notice files
> * To ease creating the distros I created assembly descriptors
> referred to by the parent pom.
>
> This all generates correct LICENSE and NOTICE files and as side effect a
> DEPENDENCIES file, which list what the project is depending on.
>
> For details see FELIX-1747 [1].
>
> There might still be room for improvement but I think this is a
> promising first step.
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-1747
>
> Richard S. Hall schrieb:
>
>> On 10/12/09 15:46, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Richard S. Hall schrieb:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 10/12/09 15:17, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S.
>>>>> Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my
>>>>>> point
>>>>>> of view the overall issue to decide is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Two-file approach, one for legal requirements and one for
>>>>>> "courtesy".
>>>>>> 2. One-file approach for both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I prefer (2) if this is possible....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> See also http://markmail.org/message/cxwtnuys65c7hs2y - we had a
>>>>> similar discussion in Sling a while ago, and the way I read it Roy
>>>>> clearly states that 1) is the way to go - NOTICE should only be used
>>>>> for *required* attribution notices.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice also says "the
>>>>> remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for *required* third-party
>>>>> notices" (my emphasis).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Again, if that is the case that we are required to do it that way, then
>>>> we can end the discussion. However, it is not clear what the additional
>>>> burden it places other than to carry around a longer NOTICE file.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> To the contrary, the NOTICE file will become considerably smaller since
>>> it only contains a fraction of what's in there right now.
>>>
>>> The additional burden is in deciding whether to include the 3rd party
>>> inclusion in the NOTICE file or not and adding it there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oh well. Hoops. Jump.
>>>>
>>>> I guess we all better start investigating which of our dependencies have
>>>> legal requirements.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I agree that this is a tedious job, but it is a required one -- in so
>>> far as I understand the processes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, Felix, since you appear to be the expert here :-), perhaps you can
>>>> help us take the next steps down this road.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well, I would definitely not call me an expert here; I just have had my
>>> fingers clapped (see above mail reference) ;-)
>>>
>>> I would think along these lines: We use your proposed template as the
>>> basis for future README files. In the NOTICE file we have the required
>>> four lines (as proposed by Guillaume we might use the Remote Resources
>>> plugin for this) plus the required attributions only.
>>>
>>>
>> So, perhaps someone can help us get set up using the plugin and see that
>> it will work for us.
>>
>>
>>> In the README files we list everything we agree to:
>>>
>>> * Project name
>>> * Copyright and license reference
>>> * All 3rd party stuff included in the binary/source releases
>>> * 3rd party stuff we depend on (like the OSGi API for example)
>>> * Links to issue tracking, documentation, mailing lists
>>> * ....
>>>
>>> This is pretty much free format. And we might even declare the presence
>>> of the README file a must in any distributable.
>>>
>>>
>> I am not looking for more crap^H^H^H^Hinformation to put in the
>> README...minimal is best IMO.
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>>
>>> The NOTICE file will turn out to be much smaller -- mostly only
>>> containing the minimal four lines.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Felix
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -> richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -Bertrand (from the peanuts gallery)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Ok, then, you got me ;-)
I tried to setup what I had in mind:
* I patched the Felix parent pom (see FELIX-1747) attachement
* I created a modified Web Console project with adapted
license and notice files
* To ease creating the distros I created assembly descriptors
referred to by the parent pom.
This all generates correct LICENSE and NOTICE files and as side effect a
DEPENDENCIES file, which list what the project is depending on.
For details see FELIX-1747 [1].
There might still be room for improvement but I think this is a
promising first step.
WDYT ?
Regards
Felix
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-1747
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
> On 10/12/09 15:46, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Richard S. Hall schrieb:
>>
>>> On 10/12/09 15:17, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S.
>>>> Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ...reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my
>>>>> point
>>>>> of view the overall issue to decide is:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Two-file approach, one for legal requirements and one for
>>>>> "courtesy".
>>>>> 2. One-file approach for both.
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer (2) if this is possible....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> See also http://markmail.org/message/cxwtnuys65c7hs2y - we had a
>>>> similar discussion in Sling a while ago, and the way I read it Roy
>>>> clearly states that 1) is the way to go - NOTICE should only be used
>>>> for *required* attribution notices.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice also says "the
>>>> remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for *required* third-party
>>>> notices" (my emphasis).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Again, if that is the case that we are required to do it that way, then
>>> we can end the discussion. However, it is not clear what the additional
>>> burden it places other than to carry around a longer NOTICE file.
>>>
>> To the contrary, the NOTICE file will become considerably smaller since
>> it only contains a fraction of what's in there right now.
>>
>> The additional burden is in deciding whether to include the 3rd party
>> inclusion in the NOTICE file or not and adding it there.
>>
>>
>>> Oh well. Hoops. Jump.
>>>
>>> I guess we all better start investigating which of our dependencies have
>>> legal requirements.
>>>
>> I agree that this is a tedious job, but it is a required one -- in so
>> far as I understand the processes.
>>
>>
>>> So, Felix, since you appear to be the expert here :-), perhaps you can
>>> help us take the next steps down this road.
>>>
>> Well, I would definitely not call me an expert here; I just have had my
>> fingers clapped (see above mail reference) ;-)
>>
>> I would think along these lines: We use your proposed template as the
>> basis for future README files. In the NOTICE file we have the required
>> four lines (as proposed by Guillaume we might use the Remote Resources
>> plugin for this) plus the required attributions only.
>>
>
> So, perhaps someone can help us get set up using the plugin and see that
> it will work for us.
>
>> In the README files we list everything we agree to:
>>
>> * Project name
>> * Copyright and license reference
>> * All 3rd party stuff included in the binary/source releases
>> * 3rd party stuff we depend on (like the OSGi API for example)
>> * Links to issue tracking, documentation, mailing lists
>> * ....
>>
>> This is pretty much free format. And we might even declare the presence
>> of the README file a must in any distributable.
>>
>
> I am not looking for more crap^H^H^H^Hinformation to put in the
> README...minimal is best IMO.
>
> -> richard
>
>> The NOTICE file will turn out to be much smaller -- mostly only
>> containing the minimal four lines.
>>
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>
>>
>>> -> richard
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Bertrand (from the peanuts gallery)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 10/12/09 15:46, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Richard S. Hall schrieb:
>
>> On 10/12/09 15:17, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S.
>>> Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ...reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my point
>>>> of view the overall issue to decide is:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Two-file approach, one for legal requirements and one for
>>>> "courtesy".
>>>> 2. One-file approach for both.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer (2) if this is possible....
>>>>
>>>>
>>> See also http://markmail.org/message/cxwtnuys65c7hs2y - we had a
>>> similar discussion in Sling a while ago, and the way I read it Roy
>>> clearly states that 1) is the way to go - NOTICE should only be used
>>> for *required* attribution notices.
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice also says "the
>>> remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for *required* third-party
>>> notices" (my emphasis).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Again, if that is the case that we are required to do it that way, then
>> we can end the discussion. However, it is not clear what the additional
>> burden it places other than to carry around a longer NOTICE file.
>>
> To the contrary, the NOTICE file will become considerably smaller since
> it only contains a fraction of what's in there right now.
>
> The additional burden is in deciding whether to include the 3rd party
> inclusion in the NOTICE file or not and adding it there.
>
>
>> Oh well. Hoops. Jump.
>>
>> I guess we all better start investigating which of our dependencies have
>> legal requirements.
>>
> I agree that this is a tedious job, but it is a required one -- in so
> far as I understand the processes.
>
>
>> So, Felix, since you appear to be the expert here :-), perhaps you can
>> help us take the next steps down this road.
>>
> Well, I would definitely not call me an expert here; I just have had my
> fingers clapped (see above mail reference) ;-)
>
> I would think along these lines: We use your proposed template as the
> basis for future README files. In the NOTICE file we have the required
> four lines (as proposed by Guillaume we might use the Remote Resources
> plugin for this) plus the required attributions only.
>
So, perhaps someone can help us get set up using the plugin and see that
it will work for us.
> In the README files we list everything we agree to:
>
> * Project name
> * Copyright and license reference
> * All 3rd party stuff included in the binary/source releases
> * 3rd party stuff we depend on (like the OSGi API for example)
> * Links to issue tracking, documentation, mailing lists
> * ....
>
> This is pretty much free format. And we might even declare the presence
> of the README file a must in any distributable.
>
I am not looking for more crap^H^H^H^Hinformation to put in the
README...minimal is best IMO.
-> richard
> The NOTICE file will turn out to be much smaller -- mostly only
> containing the minimal four lines.
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
>
>> -> richard
>>
>>
>>> -Bertrand (from the peanuts gallery)
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
> On 10/12/09 15:17, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S.
>> Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>>
>>> ...reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my point
>>> of view the overall issue to decide is:
>>>
>>> 1. Two-file approach, one for legal requirements and one for
>>> "courtesy".
>>> 2. One-file approach for both.
>>>
>>> I prefer (2) if this is possible....
>>>
>> See also http://markmail.org/message/cxwtnuys65c7hs2y - we had a
>> similar discussion in Sling a while ago, and the way I read it Roy
>> clearly states that 1) is the way to go - NOTICE should only be used
>> for *required* attribution notices.
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice also says "the
>> remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for *required* third-party
>> notices" (my emphasis).
>>
>>
>
> Again, if that is the case that we are required to do it that way, then
> we can end the discussion. However, it is not clear what the additional
> burden it places other than to carry around a longer NOTICE file.
To the contrary, the NOTICE file will become considerably smaller since
it only contains a fraction of what's in there right now.
The additional burden is in deciding whether to include the 3rd party
inclusion in the NOTICE file or not and adding it there.
>
> Oh well. Hoops. Jump.
>
> I guess we all better start investigating which of our dependencies have
> legal requirements.
I agree that this is a tedious job, but it is a required one -- in so
far as I understand the processes.
>
> So, Felix, since you appear to be the expert here :-), perhaps you can
> help us take the next steps down this road.
Well, I would definitely not call me an expert here; I just have had my
fingers clapped (see above mail reference) ;-)
I would think along these lines: We use your proposed template as the
basis for future README files. In the NOTICE file we have the required
four lines (as proposed by Guillaume we might use the Remote Resources
plugin for this) plus the required attributions only.
In the README files we list everything we agree to:
* Project name
* Copyright and license reference
* All 3rd party stuff included in the binary/source releases
* 3rd party stuff we depend on (like the OSGi API for example)
* Links to issue tracking, documentation, mailing lists
* ....
This is pretty much free format. And we might even declare the presence
of the README file a must in any distributable.
The NOTICE file will turn out to be much smaller -- mostly only
containing the minimal four lines.
Regards
Felix
>
> -> richard
>
>> -Bertrand (from the peanuts gallery)
>>
>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 10/12/09 15:17, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>
>> ...reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my point
>> of view the overall issue to decide is:
>>
>> 1. Two-file approach, one for legal requirements and one for "courtesy".
>> 2. One-file approach for both.
>>
>> I prefer (2) if this is possible....
>>
> See also http://markmail.org/message/cxwtnuys65c7hs2y - we had a
> similar discussion in Sling a while ago, and the way I read it Roy
> clearly states that 1) is the way to go - NOTICE should only be used
> for *required* attribution notices.
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice also says "the
> remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for *required* third-party
> notices" (my emphasis).
>
>
Again, if that is the case that we are required to do it that way, then
we can end the discussion. However, it is not clear what the additional
burden it places other than to carry around a longer NOTICE file.
Oh well. Hoops. Jump.
I guess we all better start investigating which of our dependencies have
legal requirements.
So, Felix, since you appear to be the expert here :-), perhaps you can
help us take the next steps down this road.
-> richard
> -Bertrand (from the peanuts gallery)
>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> ...reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my point
> of view the overall issue to decide is:
>
> 1. Two-file approach, one for legal requirements and one for "courtesy".
> 2. One-file approach for both.
>
> I prefer (2) if this is possible....
See also http://markmail.org/message/cxwtnuys65c7hs2y - we had a
similar discussion in Sling a while ago, and the way I read it Roy
clearly states that 1) is the way to go - NOTICE should only be used
for *required* attribution notices.
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice also says "the
remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for *required* third-party
notices" (my emphasis).
-Bertrand (from the peanuts gallery)
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 10/12/09 15:03, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Richard S. Hall schrieb:
>
>> Oops, let me edit that:
>>
>> If we ARE allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we don't
>> have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two cases
>> and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me, this has nothing to
>> do with courtesy, it has to do with easing the maintenance.
>>
> Point is that the NOTICE file must not be removed by downstream
> re-bundlers (unless a dependency referred to is removed).
>
> Also there is some stuff we include (for example the icons used in the
> web console) where we have to attribute to the source.
>
> And there is other stuff, where this is not required at all. And
> generally, if we don't need to attribute, we should not (this is the
> simplest of all cases ;-) ).
>
> So, if we attribute something which is not required to be attributed, it
> is IMHO a question of courtesy (and I am all for attributing everything
> we include, don't get me wrong).
>
> How about this :
>
> * Everything we include is added to the README file
> * If something needs attribution it is also added to the NOTICE
> file
>
> This is probably as simple as it can get
>
Not quite. As simple as it gets is we attribute everything in the NOTICE
file...one single file for all use cases, no need to distinguish, no
multiple artifacts to maintain.
>> However, if we are NOT allowed to do so, then we have no choice.
>>
> My understanding is that we are probably NOT allowed ;-)
>
Well, reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my
point of view the overall issue to decide is:
1. Two-file approach, one for legal requirements and one for "courtesy".
2. One-file approach for both.
I prefer (2) if this is possible.
-> richard
> Regards
> Felix
>
>
>> -> richard
>>
>> On 10/12/09 14:51, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>
>>> If we are not allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we
>>> don't have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two
>>> cases and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me, this has
>>> nothing to do with courtesy, it has to do with easing the maintenance.
>>>
>>> However, if we are not allowed to do so, then we have no choice.
>>>
>>> -> richard
>>>
>>> On 10/12/09 14:46, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for bringing this up (again). The problem I have had for some
>>>> time now, is that our NOTICE files are not really consistent with the
>>>> legal intent of the NOTICE files.
>>>>
>>>> Basically, the NOTICE files are part of the legal setup of Apache
>>>> products. As such they have have a fixed predefined header:
>>>>
>>>> Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
>>>> Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
>>>>
>>>> This product includes software developed at
>>>> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>>>
>>>> This includes everything we might pack from other Apache projects.
>>>>
>>>> For third party stuff included we have two options:
>>>>
>>>> * attribution is required: add this to the NOTICE file
>>>> * attribution not required: do not add
>>>>
>>>> Point is that the NOTICE file is not the place for courtesy -- it is the
>>>> place for legal requirements (and it is referred to by the LICENSE text
>>>> when it comes to redistributing ASF works).
>>>>
>>>> Our full freedom to attribute to everything that we need, use, include
>>>> etc. is the README file:
>>>>
>>>> * some project description
>>>> * some documentation links
>>>> * issue tracking links
>>>> * .... more ....
>>>>
>>>> Using the README file we might even distinguish between souce and binary
>>>> and collective releases.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore I propose:
>>>>
>>>> * we turn your prooposed NOTICE structure into a proposed structure
>>>> for README files and be more verbose with respect to differences
>>>> of source and binary distributions.
>>>>
>>>> * limit the contents of the NOTICE file to the bare legal minimum.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Felix
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>>>>
>>>> Richard S. Hall schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I
>>>>> realize that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use"
>>>>> Apache developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on
>>>>> Maven
>>>>> to build). It seems silly to list Apache under both "include" and
>>>>> "use",
>>>>> especially since the main point of the NOTICE file is for third-party
>>>>> notices.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor out
>>>>> the Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections for
>>>>> third-party notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for
>>>>> framework:
>>>>>
>>>>> Apache Felix Framework
>>>>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>>>>
>>>>> This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>>>>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>>>>> Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>>>>
>>>>> This product includes software developed at
>>>>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>>>>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>>>>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>>>>
>>>>> This product uses software developed at
>>>>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>>>>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>>>>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> This product uses software developed at
>>>>> The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
>>>>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> III. Overall License Summary
>>>>> - Apache License 2.0
>>>>>
>>>>> To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
>>>>>
>>>>> Apache Felix AAA
>>>>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>>>>
>>>>> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>>>>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>>>>> Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>>>>
>>>>> BBB
>>>>>
>>>>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>>>>
>>>>> CCC
>>>>>
>>>>> III. Overall License Summary
>>>>> - Apache License 2.0
>>>>> - DDD
>>>>>
>>>>> Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and DDD
>>>>> would list their licenses.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> -> richard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
> Oops, let me edit that:
>
> If we ARE allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we don't
> have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two cases
> and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me, this has nothing to
> do with courtesy, it has to do with easing the maintenance.
Point is that the NOTICE file must not be removed by downstream
re-bundlers (unless a dependency referred to is removed).
Also there is some stuff we include (for example the icons used in the
web console) where we have to attribute to the source.
And there is other stuff, where this is not required at all. And
generally, if we don't need to attribute, we should not (this is the
simplest of all cases ;-) ).
So, if we attribute something which is not required to be attributed, it
is IMHO a question of courtesy (and I am all for attributing everything
we include, don't get me wrong).
How about this :
* Everything we include is added to the README file
* If something needs attribution it is also added to the NOTICE
file
This is probably as simple as it can get
>
> However, if we are NOT allowed to do so, then we have no choice.
My understanding is that we are probably NOT allowed ;-)
Regards
Felix
>
> -> richard
>
> On 10/12/09 14:51, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> If we are not allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we
>> don't have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two
>> cases and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me, this has
>> nothing to do with courtesy, it has to do with easing the maintenance.
>>
>> However, if we are not allowed to do so, then we have no choice.
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>> On 10/12/09 14:46, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for bringing this up (again). The problem I have had for some
>>> time now, is that our NOTICE files are not really consistent with the
>>> legal intent of the NOTICE files.
>>>
>>> Basically, the NOTICE files are part of the legal setup of Apache
>>> products. As such they have have a fixed predefined header:
>>>
>>> Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
>>> Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
>>>
>>> This product includes software developed at
>>> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>>
>>> This includes everything we might pack from other Apache projects.
>>>
>>> For third party stuff included we have two options:
>>>
>>> * attribution is required: add this to the NOTICE file
>>> * attribution not required: do not add
>>>
>>> Point is that the NOTICE file is not the place for courtesy -- it is the
>>> place for legal requirements (and it is referred to by the LICENSE text
>>> when it comes to redistributing ASF works).
>>>
>>> Our full freedom to attribute to everything that we need, use, include
>>> etc. is the README file:
>>>
>>> * some project description
>>> * some documentation links
>>> * issue tracking links
>>> * .... more ....
>>>
>>> Using the README file we might even distinguish between souce and binary
>>> and collective releases.
>>>
>>> Therefore I propose:
>>>
>>> * we turn your prooposed NOTICE structure into a proposed structure
>>> for README files and be more verbose with respect to differences
>>> of source and binary distributions.
>>>
>>> * limit the contents of the NOTICE file to the bare legal minimum.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Felix
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>>>
>>> Richard S. Hall schrieb:
>>>> After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I
>>>> realize that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use"
>>>> Apache developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on
>>>> Maven
>>>> to build). It seems silly to list Apache under both "include" and
>>>> "use",
>>>> especially since the main point of the NOTICE file is for third-party
>>>> notices.
>>>>
>>>> I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor out
>>>> the Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections for
>>>> third-party notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for
>>>> framework:
>>>>
>>>> Apache Felix Framework
>>>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>>>
>>>> This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>>>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>>>> Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>>>
>>>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>>>
>>>> This product includes software developed at
>>>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>>>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>>>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>>>
>>>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>>>
>>>> This product uses software developed at
>>>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>>>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>>>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>>>
>>>> This product uses software developed at
>>>> The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
>>>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>>>
>>>> III. Overall License Summary
>>>> - Apache License 2.0
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
>>>>
>>>> Apache Felix AAA
>>>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>>>
>>>> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>>>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>>>> Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>>>
>>>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>>>
>>>> BBB
>>>>
>>>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>>>
>>>> CCC
>>>>
>>>> III. Overall License Summary
>>>> - Apache License 2.0
>>>> - DDD
>>>>
>>>> Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and DDD
>>>> would list their licenses.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> -> richard
>>>>
>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Oops, let me edit that:
If we ARE allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we don't
have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two cases
and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me, this has nothing to
do with courtesy, it has to do with easing the maintenance.
However, if we are NOT allowed to do so, then we have no choice.
-> richard
On 10/12/09 14:51, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> If we are not allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we
> don't have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two
> cases and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me, this has
> nothing to do with courtesy, it has to do with easing the maintenance.
>
> However, if we are not allowed to do so, then we have no choice.
>
> -> richard
>
> On 10/12/09 14:46, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this up (again). The problem I have had for some
>> time now, is that our NOTICE files are not really consistent with the
>> legal intent of the NOTICE files.
>>
>> Basically, the NOTICE files are part of the legal setup of Apache
>> products. As such they have have a fixed predefined header:
>>
>> Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
>> Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
>>
>> This product includes software developed at
>> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>
>> This includes everything we might pack from other Apache projects.
>>
>> For third party stuff included we have two options:
>>
>> * attribution is required: add this to the NOTICE file
>> * attribution not required: do not add
>>
>> Point is that the NOTICE file is not the place for courtesy -- it is the
>> place for legal requirements (and it is referred to by the LICENSE text
>> when it comes to redistributing ASF works).
>>
>> Our full freedom to attribute to everything that we need, use, include
>> etc. is the README file:
>>
>> * some project description
>> * some documentation links
>> * issue tracking links
>> * .... more ....
>>
>> Using the README file we might even distinguish between souce and binary
>> and collective releases.
>>
>> Therefore I propose:
>>
>> * we turn your prooposed NOTICE structure into a proposed structure
>> for README files and be more verbose with respect to differences
>> of source and binary distributions.
>>
>> * limit the contents of the NOTICE file to the bare legal minimum.
>>
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>>
>> Richard S. Hall schrieb:
>>> After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I
>>> realize that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use"
>>> Apache developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on
>>> Maven
>>> to build). It seems silly to list Apache under both "include" and
>>> "use",
>>> especially since the main point of the NOTICE file is for third-party
>>> notices.
>>>
>>> I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor out
>>> the Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections for
>>> third-party notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for
>>> framework:
>>>
>>> Apache Felix Framework
>>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>>
>>> This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>>> Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>>
>>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>>
>>> This product includes software developed at
>>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>>
>>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>>
>>> This product uses software developed at
>>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>>
>>> This product uses software developed at
>>> The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
>>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>>
>>> III. Overall License Summary
>>> - Apache License 2.0
>>>
>>> To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
>>>
>>> Apache Felix AAA
>>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>>
>>> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>>> Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>>
>>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>>
>>> BBB
>>>
>>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>>
>>> CCC
>>>
>>> III. Overall License Summary
>>> - Apache License 2.0
>>> - DDD
>>>
>>> Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and DDD
>>> would list their licenses.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> -> richard
>>>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
If we are not allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we
don't have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two
cases and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me, this has
nothing to do with courtesy, it has to do with easing the maintenance.
However, if we are not allowed to do so, then we have no choice.
-> richard
On 10/12/09 14:46, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up (again). The problem I have had for some
> time now, is that our NOTICE files are not really consistent with the
> legal intent of the NOTICE files.
>
> Basically, the NOTICE files are part of the legal setup of Apache
> products. As such they have have a fixed predefined header:
>
> Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
> Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This product includes software developed at
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> This includes everything we might pack from other Apache projects.
>
> For third party stuff included we have two options:
>
> * attribution is required: add this to the NOTICE file
> * attribution not required: do not add
>
> Point is that the NOTICE file is not the place for courtesy -- it is the
> place for legal requirements (and it is referred to by the LICENSE text
> when it comes to redistributing ASF works).
>
> Our full freedom to attribute to everything that we need, use, include
> etc. is the README file:
>
> * some project description
> * some documentation links
> * issue tracking links
> * .... more ....
>
> Using the README file we might even distinguish between souce and binary
> and collective releases.
>
> Therefore I propose:
>
> * we turn your prooposed NOTICE structure into a proposed structure
> for README files and be more verbose with respect to differences
> of source and binary distributions.
>
> * limit the contents of the NOTICE file to the bare legal minimum.
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>
> Richard S. Hall schrieb:
>
>> After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I
>> realize that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use"
>> Apache developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on Maven
>> to build). It seems silly to list Apache under both "include" and "use",
>> especially since the main point of the NOTICE file is for third-party
>> notices.
>>
>> I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor out
>> the Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections for
>> third-party notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for framework:
>>
>> Apache Felix Framework
>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>
>> This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>> Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>
>> This product includes software developed at
>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>
>> This product uses software developed at
>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> This product uses software developed at
>> The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> III. Overall License Summary
>> - Apache License 2.0
>>
>> To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
>>
>> Apache Felix AAA
>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>
>> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>> Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>
>> BBB
>>
>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>
>> CCC
>>
>> III. Overall License Summary
>> - Apache License 2.0
>> - DDD
>>
>> Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and DDD
>> would list their licenses.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Thanks for bringing this up (again). The problem I have had for some
> time now, is that our NOTICE files are not really consistent with the
> legal intent of the NOTICE files....
FWIW, there's been some discussion about this recently at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-62, which includes
pointers to some related discussions threads.
-Bertrand
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
One thing that might be worth considering if we go this way is to
leverage the maven plugin that has been written for the generation of
those legal files. The maven-remote-resources-plugin is used in most
Apache projects i've dealt with.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 14:46, Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up (again). The problem I have had for some
> time now, is that our NOTICE files are not really consistent with the
> legal intent of the NOTICE files.
>
> Basically, the NOTICE files are part of the legal setup of Apache
> products. As such they have have a fixed predefined header:
>
> Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
> Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This product includes software developed at
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> This includes everything we might pack from other Apache projects.
>
> For third party stuff included we have two options:
>
> * attribution is required: add this to the NOTICE file
> * attribution not required: do not add
>
> Point is that the NOTICE file is not the place for courtesy -- it is the
> place for legal requirements (and it is referred to by the LICENSE text
> when it comes to redistributing ASF works).
>
> Our full freedom to attribute to everything that we need, use, include
> etc. is the README file:
>
> * some project description
> * some documentation links
> * issue tracking links
> * .... more ....
>
> Using the README file we might even distinguish between souce and binary
> and collective releases.
>
> Therefore I propose:
>
> * we turn your prooposed NOTICE structure into a proposed structure
> for README files and be more verbose with respect to differences
> of source and binary distributions.
>
> * limit the contents of the NOTICE file to the bare legal minimum.
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>
> Richard S. Hall schrieb:
>> After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I
>> realize that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use"
>> Apache developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on Maven
>> to build). It seems silly to list Apache under both "include" and "use",
>> especially since the main point of the NOTICE file is for third-party
>> notices.
>>
>> I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor out
>> the Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections for
>> third-party notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for framework:
>>
>> Apache Felix Framework
>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>
>> This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>> Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>
>> This product includes software developed at
>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>
>> This product uses software developed at
>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> This product uses software developed at
>> The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> III. Overall License Summary
>> - Apache License 2.0
>>
>> To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
>>
>> Apache Felix AAA
>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>
>> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>> Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>
>> BBB
>>
>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>
>> CCC
>>
>> III. Overall License Summary
>> - Apache License 2.0
>> - DDD
>>
>> Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and DDD
>> would list their licenses.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Thanks for bringing this up (again). The problem I have had for some
time now, is that our NOTICE files are not really consistent with the
legal intent of the NOTICE files.
Basically, the NOTICE files are part of the legal setup of Apache
products. As such they have have a fixed predefined header:
Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
This includes everything we might pack from other Apache projects.
For third party stuff included we have two options:
* attribution is required: add this to the NOTICE file
* attribution not required: do not add
Point is that the NOTICE file is not the place for courtesy -- it is the
place for legal requirements (and it is referred to by the LICENSE text
when it comes to redistributing ASF works).
Our full freedom to attribute to everything that we need, use, include
etc. is the README file:
* some project description
* some documentation links
* issue tracking links
* .... more ....
Using the README file we might even distinguish between souce and binary
and collective releases.
Therefore I propose:
* we turn your prooposed NOTICE structure into a proposed structure
for README files and be more verbose with respect to differences
of source and binary distributions.
* limit the contents of the NOTICE file to the bare legal minimum.
Regards
Felix
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
> After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I
> realize that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use"
> Apache developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on Maven
> to build). It seems silly to list Apache under both "include" and "use",
> especially since the main point of the NOTICE file is for third-party
> notices.
>
> I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor out
> the Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections for
> third-party notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for framework:
>
> Apache Felix Framework
> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
> Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>
> I. Included Third-Party Software
>
> This product includes software developed at
> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>
> II. Used Third-Party Software
>
> This product uses software developed at
> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>
> This product uses software developed at
> The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>
> III. Overall License Summary
> - Apache License 2.0
>
> To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
>
> Apache Felix AAA
> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
> Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>
> I. Included Third-Party Software
>
> BBB
>
> II. Used Third-Party Software
>
> CCC
>
> III. Overall License Summary
> - Apache License 2.0
> - DDD
>
> Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and DDD
> would list their licenses.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -> richard
>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
FYI, I created a wiki page for the NOTICE file template here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FELIX/NOTICE+file+template+%28PROPOSED%29
Maybe there is a more appropriate place for it on the wiki, but for now
it is just under the developer documentation section.
Feel free to expand on the page with additional clarifications and notes.
-> richard
On 10/12/09 14:12, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 10/12/09 14:06, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> I'd like to have on point clarified though. What's the intent for use
>> / include wrt to a binary jar, a source assembly (ready to build), a
>> binary assembly (composed of multiple bundles like the karaf one), a
>> source jar (only the source for the jar with no build system), and a
>> javadoc jar (only contains the javadoc) ?
>> When reviewing all the license / notices files for karaf, it was not
>> always clear to me what I should put in all those cases.
>
> I agree, it can get confusing.
>
> From my point of view, we should try to only have one NOTICE file for
> both the source and binary (JavaDoc not so sure). So, in that case if
> the two are different the NOTICE file ends up being the union of the
> two. For creating distros, like we do with framework packaging it with
> some bundles, then you need a new NOTICE file for that one that again
> is the union of everything included.
>
> But the point is, we want to keep this as simple as possible for us to
> manage. It will be a pain to create different NOTICE files for every
> different situation.
>
> -> richard
>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 14:00, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org>
>> wrote:
>>> After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I
>>> realize
>>> that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use" Apache
>>> developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on Maven to
>>> build).
>>> It seems silly to list Apache under both "include" and "use",
>>> especially
>>> since the main point of the NOTICE file is for third-party notices.
>>>
>>> I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor
>>> out the
>>> Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections for
>>> third-party
>>> notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for framework:
>>>
>>> Apache Felix Framework
>>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>>
>>> This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>>> Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>>
>>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>>
>>> This product includes software developed at
>>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>>
>>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>>
>>> This product uses software developed at
>>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>>
>>> This product uses software developed at
>>> The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
>>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>>
>>> III. Overall License Summary
>>> - Apache License 2.0
>>>
>>> To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
>>>
>>> Apache Felix AAA
>>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>>
>>> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>>> Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>>
>>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>>
>>> BBB
>>>
>>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>>
>>> CCC
>>>
>>> III. Overall License Summary
>>> - Apache License 2.0
>>> - DDD
>>>
>>> Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and DDD
>>> would list their licenses.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> -> richard
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 10/12/09 14:06, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> Sounds good.
>
> I'd like to have on point clarified though. What's the intent for use
> / include wrt to a binary jar, a source assembly (ready to build), a
> binary assembly (composed of multiple bundles like the karaf one), a
> source jar (only the source for the jar with no build system), and a
> javadoc jar (only contains the javadoc) ?
> When reviewing all the license / notices files for karaf, it was not
> always clear to me what I should put in all those cases.
>
I agree, it can get confusing.
From my point of view, we should try to only have one NOTICE file for
both the source and binary (JavaDoc not so sure). So, in that case if
the two are different the NOTICE file ends up being the union of the
two. For creating distros, like we do with framework packaging it with
some bundles, then you need a new NOTICE file for that one that again is
the union of everything included.
But the point is, we want to keep this as simple as possible for us to
manage. It will be a pain to create different NOTICE files for every
different situation.
-> richard
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 14:00, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>
>> After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I realize
>> that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use" Apache
>> developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on Maven to build).
>> It seems silly to list Apache under both "include" and "use", especially
>> since the main point of the NOTICE file is for third-party notices.
>>
>> I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor out the
>> Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections for third-party
>> notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for framework:
>>
>> Apache Felix Framework
>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>
>> This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>> Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>
>> This product includes software developed at
>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>
>> This product uses software developed at
>> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
>> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> This product uses software developed at
>> The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
>> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> III. Overall License Summary
>> - Apache License 2.0
>>
>> To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
>>
>> Apache Felix AAA
>> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>>
>> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
>> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
>> Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>>
>> I. Included Third-Party Software
>>
>> BBB
>>
>> II. Used Third-Party Software
>>
>> CCC
>>
>> III. Overall License Summary
>> - Apache License 2.0
>> - DDD
>>
>> Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and DDD
>> would list their licenses.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good.
I'd like to have on point clarified though. What's the intent for use
/ include wrt to a binary jar, a source assembly (ready to build), a
binary assembly (composed of multiple bundles like the karaf one), a
source jar (only the source for the jar with no build system), and a
javadoc jar (only contains the javadoc) ?
When reviewing all the license / notices files for karaf, it was not
always clear to me what I should put in all those cases.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 14:00, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I realize
> that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use" Apache
> developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on Maven to build).
> It seems silly to list Apache under both "include" and "use", especially
> since the main point of the NOTICE file is for third-party notices.
>
> I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor out the
> Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections for third-party
> notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for framework:
>
> Apache Felix Framework
> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
> Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>
> I. Included Third-Party Software
>
> This product includes software developed at
> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>
> II. Used Third-Party Software
>
> This product uses software developed at
> The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
> Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>
> This product uses software developed at
> The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
> Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
>
> III. Overall License Summary
> - Apache License 2.0
>
> To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
>
> Apache Felix AAA
> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
> Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
>
> I. Included Third-Party Software
>
> BBB
>
> II. Used Third-Party Software
>
> CCC
>
> III. Overall License Summary
> - Apache License 2.0
> - DDD
>
> Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and DDD
> would list their licenses.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -> richard
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com