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 B6D2017F15 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:26:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 83020 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jan 2016 16:24:23 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 80975 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jan 2016 16:24:22 -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 78918 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jan 2016 16:17:39 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:17:39 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id C96F91A0361 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:17:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=esgyn.com Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JD7ab04T8tCi for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:17:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (mail-ob0-f178.google.com [209.85.214.178]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 3AA7542BD1 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:17:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id is5so146137572obc.0 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:17:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=esgyn.com; s=google; h=from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:thread-index:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UwcefuwkMEVCsH41cBdKZ1clvJJdkrwfnys7dzXK/iU=; b=IBde7hs1LY1hNLBPhaM5AeVMTRq1VczQVxtazBhxrEuWhq7fn2NC8a5msS6yrtu9XU vmOHr8pNEDBgNm+dECsd/vyFshZhoOgIn+U9Jzi4WNS6OChUE+RE2BbIyg+LwMrSWP1h 5A8lhKBQ93QjXkHZb2dcX0VIn9JbVtOTcyV7A= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UwcefuwkMEVCsH41cBdKZ1clvJJdkrwfnys7dzXK/iU=; b=j9cBcIyLQ94Co1vvKAXAgb8JEPXqTRtaZK7O7iifLb2vo9QhuljlZBnoH47lIlz6// kaBS/phs3jCQJM1dRkC7AVlKHNFs6ToFDDQ11CB5avRwnJ5Pa3WwCpa8Vm24C7LdY1Xm P+lZsuVHatPYg2q95l8z8OvPMBeItGMzMw5PjFlCUH5F3H6ZXk9ph5DlPOyyRaBCcS/y 77tQEVaigB7R3dx3o0MUCesh1bRx150Funul0qOI4ejFrzEx2X8gAD33C1ppEDyJZCRY RHygVzsEs96p5milj+xGpX+pEancNcmvpO7yULNpYZZLjsXmpYWDFaXMjJfQH/7ceQjM +2Ng== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQhEd7GpABag/4LelR/L0FCJFvAXmLWCFVaxyGXYu4cdZB4Q9LFHUToqyDZOIBOBg0PL+sL0lNE+FEc7Q== X-Received: by 10.182.65.69 with SMTP id v5mr9848182obs.27.1453825041519; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:17:21 -0800 (PST) From: Roberta Marton References: <56A77231.5050503@nanthrax.net> In-Reply-To: <56A77231.5050503@nanthrax.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQKPapxJmkLzggcH2yNAABXYgKHvQQDZMJjLAa9w5N2dfY8pwA== Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:16:44 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 As someone who just went through the process of figuring out the LICENSE an= d 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 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=E2=80=99s not required under current policy, but there=E2=80=99s no ha= rm 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 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