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 13:27:02 GMT
On 10/12/09 15:17, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S. Hall<heavy@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)

View raw message