Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ba4763369395aa684ae5fa077b2bb572@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADY20s5nLc9zLKoNYf_8W8vf+Q6ri=-uTAnUaXZgorbYsXwH3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <C5DA537F-30E9-4D0F-8C4C-D013DD50D7E7@me.com> <56A77231.5050503@nanthrax.net>
 <ba4763369395aa684ae5fa077b2bb572@mail.gmail.com>
From: Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:10:06 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CADY20s6ggDCi_Hwv1wzWic7xEvGU6S_qT3pkPUQg1M5cxx4QHw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112c022fbcfca052a3fc297

--089e0112c022fbcfca052a3fc297
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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. For example, Subversion's LICENSE file mentions the 'linenoise'
library and its copyrights, but its NOTICE file doesn't. Not sure if this
is an error or fine because the copyright statements are still in the
original source.

A nice "if/then" style decision framework, or a flow chart would be nice..
eg:

IF the source code in question is not shipped directly in the source
release, THEN it should not be mentioned in any way. This includes if it's
automatically downloaded during the build process.
IF the source code in question is Apache licensed:
-- IF the Apache-licensed source files have copyright headers.
---- IF the headers are maintained in the source files themselves (i.e. not
"relocated" or "removed"):
------ THEN the copyright should NOT be mentioned in LICENSE or NOTICE.
etc, etc.

In other words, a single straightforward place to reference for these
items, which could be updated to reflect the policy as it evolves. Right
now I find myself going back and forth between several docs (release
guides, licensing HOWTO) and mailing list threads, sometimes with seemingly
conflicting information.

-Todd


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Roberta Marton <roberta.marton@esgyn.com>
wrote:

> +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 Onofr=C3=A9 [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 regardin=
g
> 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=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 in=
to
> >> 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 Onofr=C3=A9
> 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
>
>


--=20
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

--089e0112c022fbcfca052a3fc297--