ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: NOTICE file
Date Sun, 25 Jan 2015 16:35:11 GMT
I have updated the LICENSE and NOTICE files based on the latest comments
from Brane. Please take a look and let me know if additional changes are

LICENSE (added the MIT clause at the end)

NOTICE (removed runtime dependencies)


On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Branko ─îibej <brane@apache.org> wrote:

> 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:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/NOTICE?view=markup
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/LICENSE?view=markup
> 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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message