From dev-return-37156-apmail-harmony-dev-archive=harmony.apache.org@harmony.apache.org Wed May 06 19:41:36 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 30180 invoked from network); 6 May 2009 19:41:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 May 2009 19:41:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 61072 invoked by uid 500); 6 May 2009 19:41:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 61033 invoked by uid 500); 6 May 2009 19:41:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 61022 invoked by uid 99); 6 May 2009 19:41:35 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 May 2009 19:41:35 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of t.p.ellison@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.206 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.219.206] (HELO mail-ew0-f206.google.com) (209.85.219.206) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 May 2009 19:41:26 +0000 Received: by ewy2 with SMTP id 2so488564ewy.36 for ; Wed, 06 May 2009 12:41:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rsE9CIyiCI2bTB2ng1dloKR7uKAvjKu4PiP2QeQ522U=; b=eT6+41xa2tLMkv0Nm/EeYE/niMkt/rvzNyq38sagfH4eX3YT0oRBdEOFtD8CjmWCsH xlYOhAUL4FsSO5j4z1MPWpaDAoBwLUZjUaTJD3u5xH6hpAtMDK69EXnHARt7gODXQkWW m0X9jOxxeBNIlhmAFw4wJWKXZ7/3TwUKCRw/8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=qxlkrY9WRMirVJvNB0Cbn/f1F8RW1Q3hURjvvpdc4WexjHMSFf93x9VWswps4Uu4iJ Dqss/75xEWbNqnEGufb+o8hdOJV0kZZns6TBOKBY6a1Majm47fOnyy94Oqn1Z6CWh2Z9 cm8jRcESxHoISQtAueIUEqIhWz8GoS9feyMho= Received: by 10.211.168.5 with SMTP id v5mr6487425ebo.3.1241638865869; Wed, 06 May 2009 12:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.4? ([89.243.33.96]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm2327709eyg.34.2009.05.06.12.41.04 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 06 May 2009 12:41:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A01E7CE.8050100@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 20:41:02 +0100 From: Tim Ellison User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@harmony.apache.org Subject: Re: [general] NOTICE file does not have required contents (HARMONY-6155) References: <1298127067.1241199630649.JavaMail.jira@brutus> <49FB4E45.3080106@gmail.com> <4A01C505.7020005@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4A01C505.7020005@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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, " The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. " 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. Regards, Tim >>> [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 >> >> > >