incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roberta Marton <roberta.mar...@esgyn.com>
Subject RE: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files
Date Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:16:44 GMT
+1

As someone who just went through the process of figuring out the LICENSE and
NOTICE files and am still unclear. I agree with JB - examples would be
great.

    Regards,
    Roberta

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:jb@nanthrax.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 5:19 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi Justin,

Starting from the licensing howto
(http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice), and regarding
what you said, it's not obvious to me, and a bit confusing.

Maybe, we can enhance a bit the licensing howto to be more "straight
forward", using some existing examples to illustrate how to proceed for
"newbies" (or even veterans ;)).

WDYT ?

Thanks,
Regards
JB

On 01/26/2016 08:46 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,>
>> 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.
>
> That is the current policy yes so there is no need to list them.
>
>> Is this true even if the original dependency carries a copyright?
>
> Yes. The copyright should be in a NOTICE file and if that exists need
> it needs be be added to your NOTICE file. [1]
>
> BTW bootstrap in now MIT not Apache so you may want to double check the
> version/license you are using.
>
>> 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?
>
> It’s not required under current policy, but there’s no harm in adding it.
>
>> 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]
>
> You should add the full text or better still a pointer to it. [2]
>
>> 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?
>
> Only items bundled should be mentioned in LICENSE/NOTICE. [3]
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
> 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

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

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


Mime
View raw message