incubator-jena-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Missing NOTICE Information?
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:32:43 GMT
Just to summarize here what I make of this overall thread.

Yes, there is confusion about what goes in LICENSE and what goes in NOTICE.  One trend that
I favor is to use NOTICE for all attributions and use LICENSE to provide a copy of ALv2. 
That there is a README that points to the importance of both is valuable.  Also, considering
that the standard Apache preferred comment in the headings of code names the NOTICE file suggests
to me, at least, that NOTICE is the place.

That is not consistent practice and I see that it gets discussion on general-incubator and
legal from time to time.

What is clear is that attribution is always required by ASF and there are recent threads that
affirm that.  Also, copyright cannot be pre-empted by a new notice and licensing is not transfer
of copyright.  

I don't know how some of the ambiguities in the various practices and policy statements, but
it strikes me that always assuring attribution and preservation of whatever the essential
previous notices were.  (If there is an SGA, then the previous license doesn't matter, but
copyright and notification of the fact of copyright seems appropriate.)

>From my armchair perspective, there is good advice on this thread and I appreciate how
quickly this is being addressed.  As you can see, you are not alone in having to deal with


 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Seaborne [] On Behalf Of Andy Seaborne
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 06:41
Subject: Re: Missing NOTICE Information?

(/me finds a new incubator-general@ message about NOTICE, saving the 
need to find the old one)

The Kafka release discussion is illuminating.

Point 4 is particularly relevant on minimality of the NOTICE.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:41:06 -0500
From: Kevan Miller <>

I took a look at the svn source and the binary artifact and have some 
additional comments.

1) Your svn contains a number of jar files. I don't believe that the 
LICENSE/NOTICE file properly reflects the license/notice requirements of 
these jar files.
2) Why are these jars being stored in your svn at all?
3) Your LICENSE file only includes the ALv2 license. Yet your binary 
artifact (and your source) include artifacts with non-ALv2 licenses. For 
instance jopt-simple is MIT. All of the relevant licenses need to be 
included in your LICENSE file. You have the SCALA license in the notice 
file. I would expect it to be in the LICENSE file
4) Your NOTICE file includes lot's of "This product includes X, 
developed by" Your notice file should only include notices that 
you are *required* to have. Don't include acknowledgements in your 
notice file just for completeness. Furthermore, when a notice is 
required, make sure it is accurate. For instance, ALv2 requires that you 
include a readable copy of the notices in the NOTICE file. If there 
isn't a NOTICE file, you should not provide a "notice". 
joda-time-1.6.jar includes a NOTICE file. It's content is:
"This product includes software developed by ("
That's what needs to be included in your NOTICE file. For differently 
licensed artifacts, you need to follow the requirements of their licenses.
BTW, it looks like hadoop and pig projects are distributing jars without 
license/notice files?
5) Your source/binary don't have a DISCLAIMER. An incubation disclaimer 
is required.


View raw message