ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko ─îibej <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: NOTICE file
Date Sun, 25 Jan 2015 04:53:06 GMT
On 25.01.2015 03:19, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Hi,
> I have added the NOTICE.txt file for Apache Ignite to sprint-1 branch with
> a list of all dependencies we have:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE.txt;h=dbf2072f0bb3bc447fc4d478387aabb629dca8f6;hb=refs/heads/sprint-1
> Please review and provide comments.

First of all, there is no "Apache 2.0 license". It's called the "Apache
License, Version 2.0"; it's important to use the exact name of the
license everywhere.

> Also, I have a couple of questions:
> 1. Should we include optional runtime dependencies, or only source code
> dependencies?

No. The NOTICE file must describe the source release, nothing more and
nothing less. In other words, if a dependency is not included in the
source bundle, it should not be mentioned in NOTICE. Also note that
whatever is mentioned in NOTICE should, in general, also have a section
in LICENSE, although it's neither necessary nor desired to have several
copies of whole license texts there.

See the following two files for an example of how this is done:


The correct place to mention (mandatory or optional, source or binary)
dependencies that are not part of the source package is in a README
file, or other documentation about installing Ignite.

> 2. If should should include optional runtime dependencies, is it OK to have
> a runtime dependency on LGPL libraries?

It's perfectly OK to have optional dependencies on code that's licensed
under GPL or LGPL. The code that uses those libraries can be part of the
regular source distribution, and even of convenience binary packages, as
long as those binaries can still be used without such dependencies.

For example, Subversion up to 1.7 had an optional dependency on Neon,
which is an HTTP client library distributed under GPL. We had a script
that would download the recommended version of Neon, and our makefiles
could build that and enable HTTP protocol support. But we didn't mention
it in NOTICE or LICENSE, and Subversion could be built without Neon.

-- Brane

View raw message