Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E600186D7 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:53:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 91578 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jan 2016 18:53:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 91326 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jan 2016 18:53:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 91312 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jan 2016 18:53:16 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:53:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 9DF19C2432 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:53:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.019 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rectangular-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dSybjCz2LJmM for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:53:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 4700320E9B for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:53:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id is5so149502855obc.0 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:53:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rectangular-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=PyfYuQBYFK3mePBQOrHHk8g6l4AOzyT3xJIBSzqHoaA=; b=kOxKI9Wk/cWCS5bHHwxZqo4T8lFi131zVZ9+P5iGfqrFaNu4C2GV4uFif2uP5m33H5 /FoqjL80X5LC9I2CoCVMjloZxGArtsGn/aqaD0iwuHIgFK0EtX1kpC7S8CL7P2mKfuqN qp6E/fF45mK4LGJ+uAdjZOtz6NRaH40F3uGmDt9/pC746wUA6rhCdXEpHNZQBO7W38gQ 35VTS68X+JpFH3yA2LijyrvqedY5+UXKwTRpn3cuV12MdtcYwODFwqdugmYvwsyNMVGm sx3xkflKdkZ9HuEU2ZQFB2YCHDzqxvbiYJw1qex8tPtkYcGlGcyTMIjaFDF69T0uhbfx MSHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=PyfYuQBYFK3mePBQOrHHk8g6l4AOzyT3xJIBSzqHoaA=; b=eeLsM3oIYTsjKFMTbaYMgXzoeMpELJaWlowzNSPDBJn3ZxQIJZrHAFPIwb/+88OJb/ jJJcz8hmbBf2rffO/LUKlLVMiJEJvfUw9zEeMEIkdqbMIvAi5yG6KTP2BRb6udHvizI3 fxxMYoK+gv+0S184zbqhFWk2uY6nnPwo/LQmsmQgWeiFreUGaSJK3Apl0X1slVCpj5Hh H8RFMbwZ1VdzFLXeWXwIj1/8vvJCW3c7KN/Wi78EkoHina8aj1XAmtTTg+2oJ8OxGcjK moZuhh40Wt/PwT7KUwuNhu208VCRSVuXs0q8Oq4oPeBbk+NSnU+Mjnx+fPIkxF69tp8+ ruOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQxdTWiNRCl4Ss0TDNVQ2r2YLWwtNV7LY4dxeNSdrDwMF2cG0GJX4MR2WgfsKZW6EG/ZQPfpzTAz7U8Tg== X-Received: by 10.182.230.75 with SMTP id sw11mr18763988obc.25.1453834386145; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:53:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.148.168 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:52:46 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [206.190.64.2] In-Reply-To: References: <56A77231.5050503@nanthrax.net> From: Marvin Humphrey Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:52:46 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Todd Lipcon 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