flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3
Date Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:48:49 GMT
Returning to this topic after consulting legal-discuss.

The main person who usually responds to me says that we don't have to
modify LICENSE or NOTICE for the Google Fonts.  However, he did say that
he has seen other projects modify LICENSE for bundled non-text
dependencies and thinks it is up to us to decide what to do.  Another
person that responded said we don't have to do anything.  I think there
are several options:

1) Not do anything (No mention of Google in LICENSE or NOTICE)
2) Mention that Google's font is under ALv2 in LICENSE since other
projects do that (which could be interpreted by a hard-liner as a
violation of the instructions on LICENSE.
3) Mention the Google license and copyright in the README
4) Unbundle the font and download it.

Option #1 is simplest for me.  The text we would add to LICENSE or README
would be:

"The Open-Sans font in installer/common/src/assets/fonts/open-sans is
Copyright Google Corporation and under the Apache License 2.0"

Thoughts?
-Alex

On 6/21/14 7:30 AM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

>I'm going to ask on legal-discuss.  I've commented in-line as well.
>
>IMO, nothing you quoted here contradicts this passage which is from the
>legal folder:
>http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>"If the media comes from a third-party source (not contributed directly to
>the project), then any copyright notice that is obviously associated with
>the media should be copied into the NOTICE file."
>
>But just so I understand: is your position now that the LICENSE and NOTICE
>are ok as-is?
>
>
>
>-Alex
>
>On 6/21/14 1:02 AM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>> Agreed.  Any argument to put copyright attribution anywhere is
>>>essentially
>>> claiming it to be an uncommon situation, especially since it isn't
>>>called
>>> out in [1].  
>>Well actually it is, AL is a permissive license. It no different to MIT
>>or BSD in that regard, the only difference being is that in most cases
>>there no need to add it to LICENSE as the AL licence and copyright owner
>>is already mentioned. ie the ASF
>Agreed, in most cases you don't make changes.  I think the common case
>here is an AL source dependency which has a header in it referencing a
>NOTICE which may have copyrights in it.
>
>>
>>There is noting stating that it needs to be added to the NOTICE file here
>>[1] which is where I would expect it to be. Note it does mention CC media
>>but say changes may need to be made to LICENCE and/or NOTICE.
>Definitely agree that stuff is all over the place and makes it confusing.
>But I am quoting from a document in the legal folder.
>
>>
>>In [2] under "modifications to NOTICE"  note:
>>"NOTICE is reserved for a certain subset of legally required
>>notifications which are not satisfied by either the text of LICENSE "
>And that quote indicates that this might be one of those notifications.
>
>>
>>Also the NOTICE file is informational only [3]:
>>"The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
>>do not modify the License."
>>
>>Basically A NOTICE is informational document, while LICENSE is legal
>>document.
>>
>>For Apache License changes to the NOTICE are not required by the license,
>>the only clause (as I said before) is 4.4 ie.e a retention clause
>>covering any NOTICE distributed with the original.
>>
>>BTW Apache Whisper tries to get around all these softs of issue by
>>specifying everything in XML and generating the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
>>[4] It's FAQ is a useful read. [5]
>>
>>"A NOTICE is informational documentation, whereas a copyright notice
>>informs a reader about a legal claim of ownership" and "copyright notice
>>is governed directly by statue."
>I'm not sure what the above argues.  I think it is just the definitions.
>For sure copyright notices can end up in NOTICE.
>
>>
>>Justin
>>
>>1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#asking-questions
>>2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>>3. http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>>4. http://creadur.apache.org/whisker/
>>5. http://creadur.apache.org/whisker/faq.html
>


Mime
View raw message