incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Date Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:39:38 GMT

On 23.03.2012 13:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> 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
>>> 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]
>> [2]
>> [3]
>> [9]
> 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

Further searching helps here ;-)
I have found [4]:
All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should be 
included in the LICENSE document. This LICENSE (courtesy of Apache HTTPD) is a 
good example. The Apache License is at the top of the LICENSE document. After 
that, the license for each non-Apache licensed component is included, along with 
a clear explanation of which files that license applies to.
Thus, I derive from this best practice that an identification of the files to 
which the mentioned license in the LICENSE file applies to should be given.


Best regards, Oliver.

View raw message