incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Becky Gibson <gibson.be...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: NOTICE file for iOS
Date Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:12:33 GMT
Thanks for the clarification, Jukka.
I have an additional question concerning one set of files:
 PhoneGapLib/classes/Notification.*
These files have a copyright notice but no license.  Since the author did
sign the Apache/MIT license that Nitobi tracked, I think I can add the
Apache/MIT license used for other PhoneGap sources to the header of this
file since that use was approved by the author (based on #2 at [1]).   But,
I am also thinking that if we get approval from the author we can use the
Apache standard header and just keep his copyright?

This hurts my brain!

thanks,
-becky
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Becky Gibson <gibson.becky@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I had a few questions about the NOTICE file.   The doc indicates that I
> should
> > include any removed copyrights from files that are now checked in with
> the
> > Apache notice.
>
> Note that the suggestion of removing such extra copyrights falls under
> the "Code Developed at the ASF" section [1]. This includes code
> contributed with a software grant, which covers most of the code
> developed by the PhoneGap project but not third party files that
> PhoneGap included from external sources.
>
> The following "Third-Party Works" section [2] describes how to handle
> such files. Basically the license headers of such files should not be
> modified. Additionally the relevant license terms from such license
> headers should be included in the top-level LICENSE file [3], and any
> required notices (that are pretty rare) [4] need to be placed in the
> NOTICE file.
>
> > Here is a example of what I put into NOTICE for one of the files that
> did not
> > have the "standard", previous license blurb.
> > [...]
> > Basically, I took the existing header/license from the Notification.*
> files and
> > put it into the NOTICE file.  Is this correct?
>
> It's OK to include the notes in the NOTICE file but IIRC not
> necessary. I'd rather *not* include them in the NOTICE file as doing
> so puts extra burden to downstream users (see section 4 of ALv2 [5]).
> Instead it's good to copy the relevant licenses entirely (including
> the copyright attributions) to the LICENSE file.
>
> > I have a bit more concerns with Reachability.* as they have long Apple
> copyrights
>
> Those license headers should also go to LICENSE. However, it would be
> best first to run the license through the Apache legal team as
> described in [6]. I don't recall this license being reviewed for
> compatibility with the Apache license [7].
>
> > And for JSON/JSONKit.* I just replaced the existing license since it was
> already
> > the Apache text and did not make an entry in the NOTICE file:
>
> Here too it would be better to leave the original header intact and
> mention the JSONKit component in the LICENSE file.
>
> I hope this and the pointers below help. Please ask for more details
> or background where needed.
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
> [2]  http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
> [3]
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
> [4] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
> [5] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> [6] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#asking-questions
> [7] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>

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