incubator-jena-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <>
Subject Re: Missing NOTICE Information?
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:52:08 GMT
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Andy Seaborne <> wrote:
> IAN ALE is much nicer. IAN, ALE! is better still :-)

:-). Good plan!

> I removed mention of granted code from NOTICE because while watching
> incubator-general@, it was mentioned that NOTICE should be minimal.

Yes, it should be minimal.

Word of advice: incubator-general@ is also full of people who are not
lawyers. Their helpfulness can at times be...overwhelming :-). When in
doubt, the authoritative stuff is under

not in e-mail or on the incubator website.

> [[
> The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party
> notices. The NOTICE file may also include copyright notices moved from
> source files submitted to the ASF.
> ]]
> "required third-party notices" is only PluggedIn Software and I'm taking
> *may* as RFC 2119 "may", hence not required for HP granted material.

So, err, I guess that last sentence is ambiguous :-). I think you
should interpret it differently: I think it should be "The NOTICE file
MUST include all copyright notices moved from source files submitted
to the ASF, UNLESS the copyright holder removes the notice". I.e.
because you cannot ever completely remove a copyright notice for
someone else, if it's there, you SHOULD move it, and then you SHOULD
move it to the NOTICE file, but you definitely MUST NOT erase it

> [[
> Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license, even
> if that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party download
> site into the distribution.
> ]]
> It's BSD and so the license is in the source code.
> (I was taught back, in HP days, that, for BSD license, the statement must be
> in the file, not elsewhere. IANAL.).

Yes. If the BSD license is in the original source file then it MUST
stay in the file (per the "do not modify any third party notices"
rule). If you are producing a binary distribution, the license SHOULD
also be in the top level LICENSE file of that distribution, per the
BSD license itself:

      Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
      documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

where "in the documentation and/or other materials" is standardized as
"in the LICENSE file" for us.

I think one or two projects (geronimo? cocoon?) build their composite
for-binary-distribution LICENSE files when they produce the binary.
Other projects simply put the BSD license into the LICENSE file that
goes in the source distro, too. Much easier. A good example:

has its license duplicated into



PS: this kind of nitpicky thing really sucks to have to deal with
doesn't it? IAN, ALE is required :-) If you look at the details of the
google<->oracle lawsuit, though, you see the value of getting it
really really right :-)

View raw message