incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Date Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:37:30 GMT
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> It might work to have a single NOTICE version, as some of the Sun/Oracle
> distributions seemed to do in their THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME files.
>
> E.g.,
>
>    The following software may be included in this product: Bitstram
>    Vera Fonts; Use of any of this software is governed by the terms
>    of the license below:
>
>    Bitstream, Inc.
>
>    Bitstream Vera Fonts
>
>    [ ... ]
>
>    The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
>    but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be
>    sold by itself.
>
>    [ ... ]
>
>    The following software may be included in this product: MS Runtime
>    Libraries; Use of any of this software is governed by the terms of
>    the license below:
>
>    Microsoft Corporation
>
>    Runtime Libraries
>
>    [ ... ]
>
> I have no sense of whether that fits inside the Apache comfort zone for the
> source-code release or it should be an expanded NOTICE that the build process
> includes.  The ones that are installed with the binary Sun/Oracle
> distributions have that nice "may be included" (so long as not taken as
> permission).  This seems rather specific to the binary distribution.
>

Two considerations:

1) What is required for Apache notice policy

and

2) What makes it easier for downstream consumers to comply with
whatever notice policy they may wish to implement for their releases

Personally I think it is very confusing for downstream consumers if we
have a notice file filed with notices for modules that are not
actually included in the release.  Not very helpful for them producing
their own notices.

> I'm thinking that, in my own work, I will split them.  The build script can
> put the binary one together from the source one and a supplement that covers
> build/platform-dependent run-time dependencies.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:06
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
>> I welcome anyone who is willing to share the PITA burden concerning
>> licensing, IP, terms-of-use, etc.
>>
>> With regard to the NOTICE file.  In a binary release, yes.  If the work is
>> being embedded somehow and/or installed in some manner, the NOTICE that is
>> included in the executable install location should include it.  This applies
>> to third-party category A also.  Dependencies on the licenses of other are
>> always acknowledged.
>>
>
> So do we need two versions, one for source releases and another for
> the binary release?
>
> -Rob
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:36
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> But I am not in the business of being a PITA for
>> the project, I just think this has to be reviewed
>> by legal.
>>
>> While here a general question: do we have to mention
>> "Category-B" software in the NOTICE file?
>> I say we shouldn't since we are not including any
>> source code for that in in the SVN server or in
>> the releases, we will just use the binaries if
>> they are available.
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message