incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files
Date Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:42:07 GMT
I started a Google doc to try to clear this up in a simple "if/then" type
layout:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eftfjrWpOG-dRkw9dZWRfcj3p_qCeE5xC-G0Y5j29Ck/edit

I have a bunch of confusion/open questions still, and email threads don't
seem to be the best way to clear these things up, because different people
have different opinions. Perhaps people could take a look at the above doc
and add comments? This could then become a reference guide (or adendum to
the existing licensing howto?).

-Todd

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

> There really isn't a difference between things copied without modification
> and things copied with modification insofar as copyright is concerned.
>
> Copying without modification into a larger work is just a special case of a
> derived work. The change introduced is represented by adding the rest of
> the work.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > For the sake of all of these discussions, are "bundled dependencies" and
> > "work derived from other projects source code" 100% equivalent? In many
> > cases we've copied (or ported) small bits of code from other projects and
> > believe them to be 'derived work' from a copyright standpoint. My
> > assumption is that there's no difference between that and "bundling" in
> > which you are typically taking a release artifact as-is from another
> > project.
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Marvin Humphrey <
> marvin@rectangular.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >
>



-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

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