incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Date Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:34:28 GMT
----- Original Message -----

> From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:26 PM
> Subject: Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13
- 2012.03.19))
> 
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:
>>  Hi Dennis;
>> 
>> 
>>  On 03/19/12 11:55, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>> 
>>>  Apache releases handle the equivalent of the THIRDPARTYLICENSES by
>>>  combined use of the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
>> 
>> 
>>  We are aware of that. The THIRDPARTYLICENSES thing is a left over from
>>  the LGPL days and is not relevant for our purposes. I only use it as
>>  reference but if someone else doing this stuff in another, more
>>  systematic way, please raise your hand and I won't interfere.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>    Also, as has been determined elsewhere, the NOTICE and LICENSE files 
> on
>>>  a binary distribution may be different than on the source code because 
> of
>>>  additional third-party material that may be embedded in a binary 
> release.
>> 
>> 
>>  It was also determined that the LICENSE file would only carry the AL2.
>>  At this time whatever was "determined" is not really relevant. I 
> would
>>  prefer to have some reference for this: the branding guide doesn't
>>  mention anything about the LICENSE file, other than the fact that it
>>  exists.
>> 
> 
> My experience from working on an ODF Toolkit release is that LICENSE
> file contains the text of ALv2,as well as the text of all other
> licenses included in the release.  NOTICES includes the Apache
> copyright as well as any other *required* notices that the other
> licenses might state.
> 
> And no, this is not at all obvious from reading anything on the Apache
> website,in the podling guide, etc.  We did catch this until we put a
> RC up for a vote.


Well I'm fairly certain explicit instructions for what belongs in the LICENSE
file are written down both on the www site and in the incubator docs, as I'm
sure I both read and wrote some of it.  Patches to make it clearer are welcome.

> 
>> 
>>>  When the IP clearance is completed, the THIRDPARTYLICENSES notice 
> should
>>>  disappear and the NOTICE and LICENSE files should carry the necessary
>>>  information instead.
>>> 
>>> 
>>  Replying to your other email, yes RAT is interesting but we are currently
>>  excluding a lot of files from that analysis.
>> 
>>  Pedro.
> 

Mime
View raw message