incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: AOO LICENSE/NOTICE files
Date Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:40:09 GMT
On 3/21/12 6:45 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Greg Stein<gstein@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 2012 9:54 PM, "Rob Weir"<robweir@apache.org>  wrote:
>
>>> See, for example:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/LICENSE?view=markup
>>
>> Hunh? The Apache License, section 4(d) states these go into NOTICE.
>
> First, a general response:
>
> There has been considerable (interminable?) debate on this list and elsewhere
> as to what goes in LICENSE and what goes in NOTICE.  Personally, I don't
> really care how things get resolved; my main motivation in starting this
> thread is that we avoid putting AOO through the wringer that we put Rave,
> Kafka, etc. through, because what with all those binaries the cost of rolling
> a release candidate for AOO is high.
>
> So please, everyone... get it all out of your system now, and don't all of a
> sudden decide that to -1 an AOO release candidate because in your opinion
> something that was supposed to go in NOTICE ended up in LICENSE or vice versa
> or whatever.
>
> Now, to address the specifics:
>
> Current fashion with regards to NOTICE seems to be that we put stuff there
> like the advertising clause of a 4-clause BSD dependency, and that we do *not*
> put stuff there like the the copyright notice on 2-clause or 3-clause BSD
> or ALv2 unless some copyright holder has decided that they're (ahem) more
> special than all our other contributors and demanded specific recognition (via
> "copyright relocation") in NOTICE.  See LEGAL-62 and LEGAL-59 as apologia, and
> the Apache HTTPD LICENSE/NOTICE files as canonical samples.
>
> IMO, the LICENSE/NOTICE dichotomy debates are sound and fury signifying
> little, so long as the following are true:
>
>      * All code, either contributed to the ASF or bundled as a dependency, has
>        proper provenance documentation.
>      * All source code is clearly associated with the license the author
>        contributed it under, typically via licenses or license headers embedded
>        in individual source files, but sometimes via a local README as might be
>        appropriate for a commentless format like JSON.
>      * All primary and dependency code is utilized under licenses compatible
>        with aggregate distribution under ALv2.
>
> IANAL, but it seems to me that so long as we get individual source file
> license tagging right, whether redundant licensing information ends up in
> "LICENSE" or "NOTICE" is unlikely to be a determining factor in whether
> somebody launches a lawsuit.
>
> The AOO folks have got to be as sophisticated as any podling that has come
> through the Incubator in recent memory with regards to licensing, and assuming
> that we can trust the provenance tracking of Sun/Oracle, I'd say they've got
> things covered:
>
>      https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/IP_Clearance
>
> It's a complicated project and it's good to provide review, but I'm not
> inclined to hassle them much about LICENSE/NOTICE.  If anybody else is, let's
> do it now, while the cost to the podling is comparatively low.
>

Thanks for the feedback so far. We are keen to do it correct but it is 
really not easy and any kind of help is very much appreciated.

Thanks

Juergen



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message