felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: Proposal for a new NOTICE file
Date Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:12:55 GMT
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<heavy@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
>>
>>      
>
>
>    

Mime
View raw message