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 13:39:38 GMT
Hi,

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
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.

Further searching helps here ;-)
I have found [4]:
<quote>
...
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.
...
</quote>
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.

[4] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license


Best regards, Oliver.

Mime
View raw message