incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files
Date Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:52:46 GMT
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Yea, even after this thread I'm not entirely sure on whether copyright
> statements need to be duplicated from original source files into NOTICE or
> not.

Copyright statements on their own within a source file?  They do not.

> For example, Subversion's LICENSE file mentions the 'linenoise' library and
> its copyrights, but its NOTICE file doesn't.

That is the propagation of the *entire* BSD-2 *license* for linenoise from the
source file to the LICENSE file. All members of the BSD license family are
templates which require insertion of a copyright statement.

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/LICENSE?revision=1714640&view=markup#l369

Legally, not even the propagation of the BSD-2 license to LICENSE is required.
So long as the bundled source files for linenoise retain that license header,
the BSD-2 license is satisfied and redistribution is legally permitted.

However, it is the policy of the ASF that the top level LICENSE file summarize
information about the licensing of bundled dependencies. This provides a
service to downstream consumers of ASF products -- they can examine the
top-level LICENSE file instead of having to look through every last source
file.

Marvin Humphrey

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


Mime
View raw message