incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <orwittm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Date Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:57:16 GMT
Hi,

On 23.03.2012 12:47, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23.03.2012 11:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I will have a look at the NOTICE and the LICENSE file - both located in main/ -,
>> if there is something missing.
>>
>> Pedro already did a great job here - I am more or less expecting that everything
>> is already covered in these files.
>>
>> If there is any input regarding its content, please provide the information here
>> - Thanks in advance.
>>
>> I will mainly assure that the notices and licenses of the current work regarding
>> the RAT scan which results in certain entries in the rat-excludes are also
>> covered in the NOTICE and LICENSE file.
>>
>> Help is very welcome here.
>> Thus again, if you know of the one or the other 3rd party
>> component/library/code, drop me a note. I will check, if these are reflected in
>> these files.
>>
>
> Before starting to work on these files I had a look at the corresponding Apache
> policies/rules/... regarding these files - [1], [2], [3]
>
> I have discovered [9] which more or less state that an entry into the NOTICE
> file is mostly not needed and depends on the specific license of the 3rd party
> component.
> Having a look at the LICENSE and NOTICE file of Apache httpd project seems to
> confirm this.
>
> Pedro, do you consider [9] when you did your hard work on the NOTICE file?
>
> Mentors (and others too, of course), do you have certain advise what kind of
> wordings in a license makes an entry in the NOTICE file necessary?
>
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> [2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> [3] http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>
> [9] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>
>

Looking at the LICENSE files of Apache httpd and subversion projects reveals 
that for each license in the LICENSE file the corresponding source/component is 
identified. Some like:
- "For the mod_mime_magic component:"
- "For the modules\mappers\mod_imagemap.c component:"

Is such an identification necessary in the LICENSE file?
I did not find information about the form of the LICENSE file content on apache.org.


Thanks, Oliver.

Mime
View raw message