directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Legal files goo
Date Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:59:59 GMT

On Mar 21, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:

> David Jencks wrote:
>> I think we should consider adding the apache header in addition.
> Well, we discussed about that a while ago, but these are really BC  
> files, blindly copied. They don't even have been modified.
> Second, we intend to completely remove those guys and replace them  
> with our own implementation.
> In the meantime, do you think it's mandatory to add the Apache  
> header  ?

I did a little research on the legal-discuss list and found this from  
Cliff from Oct 26 2006:

The license header should not be placed in files that are not
contributed directly to the ASF by the author/copyright owner/owner's
agent.  We call such files that are not directly submitted to the ASF,
"third-party works".  We should never alter or add anything to the
copyright or licensing statements for such third-party works.

You are right to reference such third-party licenses in the LICENSE
file.  You are only required to reference them in the NOTICE file if
the third-party work requires some form of attribution when the work
is distributed.

So, not adding the apache header seems to be most correct.

david jencks

> thanks
> -- 
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message