incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Lipcon <>
Subject Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files
Date Tue, 26 Jan 2016 02:19:26 GMT
Hey folks,

I'm working on tidying up the source for Apache Kudu (incubating) in order
to prepare for our first ASF release, and ran into a couple bits of

1) In the case that we've borrowed code from another Apache 2.0 licensed
project, the licensing howto[1] says that there is no need to modify
LICENSE unless it transitively has dependencies with such a requirement. Is
this true even if the original dependency carries a copyright? For example,
we bundle Twitter's Bootstrap library and currently have attribution in our
LICENSE file[2] indicating the copyright (even though it's also at the top
of the relevant files). Not necessary? We can just entirely ignore such
dependencies in LICENSE and NOTICE so long as the original header's

2) In other cases we've bundled MIT or BSD-licensed source. The license
says that redistributions must retain the text of the license. Is it
sufficient that that text be only in the source code, or should we also
duplicate it into LICENSE.txt as we've done for code derived from
AsyncHBase? [3]

3) We have many thirdparty dependencies which are not "bundled" in the
source release. Instead, our build process has a script which downloads
them from the internet, unpacks, and compiles them. So, despite not being
part of the artifact itself, they are required components for the build
(and in most cases become static-linked into the binary). We currently list
all of these dependencies and their licenses in LICENSE.txt. Is this
necessary, or should we move these into a separate file?



Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

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