harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] NOTICE file does not have required contents (HARMONY-6155)
Date Wed, 06 May 2009 19:41:02 GMT
sebbaz@gmail.com wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> Sebb commented on HARMONY-6155:
>>> I think there are still some tweaks to be made.
>>> There seem to be some items missing from the NOTICE file - I
>>> would expect this to mention most, if not all, of the 3rd party items.
>>> For example:
>>> ICU4C Copyright (c) 1995-2005 International Business Machines
>>> Corporation and others
>>> All rights reserved.
>> What are the criteria you are applying to determine which third-party
>> items are put in the NOTICE file rather than the LICENSE file?
> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

That leaves plenty open to interpretation, and I'm genuinely not trying
to be awkward...

> "2. The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
> third-party notices."
>> If you take a look at the (canonical) example of httpd's NOTICE [1] and
>> LICENSE [2] you can see similar distinctions.
>> [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE?view=co
>> [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE?view=co
> Exactly, the NOTICE file contains the attributions, the LICENSE file
> contains the licenses.

Then we have a different definition of a required attribution.

Look at the httpd LICENSE ([2] above), scroll to the bottom and you'll
see a license "For the expat parser component".

It says,
"<blah, blah>

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

<blah, blah>"

Now look at the httpd NOTICE file ([1] above).  See anything there
related to this?

> As far as I can tell, at least some of the Hrmony licenses require
> attribution.

Then either the policy needs clarifying or a number of projects need
bringing in-line with it.  From what I understand, the NOTICE includes
notices that were in our source code.


>>> [BTW, do you still use both versions of ICU4C?]
>> No.  Why do you ask?  Are you confusing the ICU4C and ICU4J entries?
> Yes, sorry.
>>> ZLIB version 1.2.3
>>>  (C) 1995-2004 Jean-loup Gailly and Mark Adler
>>> etc.
>>> But not Apache Yoko, and probably not necessary for the IETF RFCs
>> Regards,
>> Tim

View raw message