Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 86733 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2009 16:32:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2009 16:32:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 95214 invoked by uid 500); 17 Aug 2009 16:32:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 94992 invoked by uid 500); 17 Aug 2009 16:32:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 94982 invoked by uid 99); 17 Aug 2009 16:32:51 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:32:51 +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 robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.211 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.220.211] (HELO mail-fx0-f211.google.com) (209.85.220.211) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:32:39 +0000 Received: by fxm7 with SMTP id 7so2498074fxm.34 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:32:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=USRfOVLp5fZr5I007Q0W4uAL9hGabjMIVT+hvvhxpy0=; b=Cm7I/3ivfkhVR/g3i+53gyD3tldGlYY78zUvvLA6Y+kKVWvBAr06ojWwjgwblUTAAL FYsLSpHYrwSKMFstThXFW6A7Ksol/+6gNQ0y3np8Ftd2QmmB/gJ0EVqb4uvcpI2n8QrB f622q3pqaWtLcNUp5YaZP68OZ5zVIwUTTf+AU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Yd4iWsjzGLmOmZd2L30WW9A0PQhLZ2qNlJQWzdw8ent3VUdWo98VpOtfhhoTYb8aIC TKxbCfdypzCxaPv5jbdB6TLi75bdfXk9edlhcuoknEkxs+lh9mihKa4zsMxoP3q+dyEt x2r+cpTuCghhnfKL/MNJxOCxWZk3ZPQqVWD0I= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.7.139 with SMTP id d11mr2843034bkd.190.1250526738115; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:32:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <71e1b5740908170840u1917f44yb08a975a4770f0b@mail.gmail.com> References: <1250280507.4648.94.camel@achilles> <25aac9fc0908150246n4dc88ecaldf49c1f506d0454e@mail.gmail.com> <71e1b5740908170405j3fde4c77xaf25bfb61e69d240@mail.gmail.com> <25aac9fc0908170500h3246807n9b9846794657e018@mail.gmail.com> <25aac9fc0908170704x6d1921f4p62ac5097cfa709f5@mail.gmail.com> <71e1b5740908170733h1d05bbdfhf0caa279727bd30e@mail.gmail.com> <71e1b5740908170840u1917f44yb08a975a4770f0b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:32:18 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1 From: Robert Burrell Donkin To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, ant elder wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russell w= rote: >> Hi Ant, >> >> On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebb wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> =A0>> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too. >>>>> =A0> >>>>> =A0> AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd part= y >>>>> code >>>>> =A0> included in the propose release. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated >>>>> =A0copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notic= e) >>>> >>>> So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they >>>> require attribution or not. >>>> >>>> I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require >>>> attribution (notice). >>>> >>> >>> The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so >>> precisely defined. >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says: >>> >>> "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required >>> third-party notices" >> >> The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect = to >> find *all* *required* third-party notices. >>> >>> but there is nothing that defines what are "required third-party >>> notices". The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says: >>> >>> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright >>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the >>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." >> >> When a notice includes the words "required", "must", "shall", or other >> imperative, then the notice is considered to be a "required third-party >> notice". And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE fil= e of >> the distribution. > > But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the > entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the > ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced: > > 1) the above copyright notice > 2) this list of conditions > 3) the following disclaimer > > So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in > the NOTICE file? effectively the complete license (including the copyright statement) needs to be reproduced:
ANTLR3 is: Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terence Parr All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the author nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> I've not seen any Apache projects do that. i don't recall ever seeing that either but we do try to evolve. some might interpret the above text as a LICENSE (and not a NOTICE). this would then lead to the conclusion that the embedded text version in LICENSE would be enough without duplication in NOTICE. (note that this argument only applies when the license is embedded in the LICENSE document.) the easiest way to resolve this is just ask the legal committee to take and document a decision about interpretation FWIW i see no reason not to duplicate in both LICENSE and NOTICE as that'll improve communication - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org