Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Subject: Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files
From: Justin Mclean <justinmclean@me.com>
In-reply-to: 
 <CADY20s5nLc9zLKoNYf_8W8vf+Q6ri=-uTAnUaXZgorbYsXwH3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:46:42 +1100
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <C5DA537F-30E9-4D0F-8C4C-D013DD50D7E7@me.com>
References: 
 <CADY20s5nLc9zLKoNYf_8W8vf+Q6ri=-uTAnUaXZgorbYsXwH3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org

Hi,=09

> 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=E2=80=99s not required under current policy, but there=E2=80=99s 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