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 14:04:39 GMT
Hi,

On 23.03.2012 14:43, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
> <orwittmann@googlemail.com>  wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> But note the further complexity with AOO, that we have binary as well
> as source packages in our release.  And our binary packages includes
> 3rd party category-b libraries that are not included in our source
> package.  So we need to make this clear somehow in our LICENSE.
>
> Maybe we need a LICENCE_source and LICENCE_binary file in SVN that
> contains the respective.  Then we can rename or cat that together to
> produce the appropriate license for a package.
>
> -Rob
>

Thanks for the hint.

I will continue to concentrate on the source stuff.
Any volunteers to pick up on the additional binary stuff?

As the 3rd party category-b libraries are all optional we may also would need a 
certain generation process for the 3rd party category-b libraries which are 
included in a certain package. This would assure that only whose license are 
included in the LICENSE file which are included in the package.

Thinking further about 'generating' the LICENSE and the NOTICE file it would 
make sense that in the future we do not maintain the LICENSE and NOTICE file by 
hand. As we are including a lot of 3rd party components it would make sense to 
have the individual pieces for the LICENSE and NOTICE file located beside the 
3rd party components in the source tree. A corresponding script could be 
implemented to put the pieces together into the mandatory LICENSE and NOTICE 
file. This could be an future task for us to improve the LICENSE and NOTICE file 
maintainance.

Best regards, Oliver.



Mime
View raw message