incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <>
Subject NOTICE and LICENSE [WAS Re: [VOTE] Release Hama 0.3-incubating (RC2)]
Date Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:57:37 GMT
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Dan Haywood <> wrote:


(Apologies if I've missed any changes in Apache policy - please jump
in and correct me)

> 1. as I understand it, notices and licenses for 3rd party products should
> not go in NOTICE and LICENSE, but should go in DEPENDENCIES.  This can be
> generated automatically using maven-remote-resources-plugin; missing
> information can go in supplemental-models.xml file.  The
> apache-incubator-disclaimer-resource-bundle (for
> maven-remote-resources-plugin) also allows the DEPENDENCIES text to be
> customized.

AIUI DEPENDENCIES is fine for plain libraries [5]. Providing that the
information is complete, then it's ok for other stuff but best
practice is to ship every license as text, rather than by reference.
(To use a public license, you need to be issued with a copy. So, it's
convenient to be able to have a copy included by Apache.)

> 2. The NOTICE, in particular, should not be modified at all.  I know there
> are many Apache projects that haven't caught up with this guidance,

AIUI the Apache policy on NOTICEs remains the same [1] include only
what's required and nothing more. For most projects, this means the
plain NOTICE but there are some exceptional cases, for example [2] and

One day hopefully this complexity will be automated...


[2] when a project includes source licensed as per [3]
[3] a license requiring an attribution NOTICE of some kind
[4] shipped an artifact licensed as per [3] without including it's
NOTICE (some jars in Maven central fall into this category eg. some
spring releases)
[5] ie those that don't aggregate dependencies

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message