incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Date Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:09:15 GMT
On 03/23/12 10:47, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Pedro Giffuni<pfg@apache.org>  wrote:
>> On 03/23/12 08:43, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> ...
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> This is not accurate.
>>
>> As I have mentioned tirelessly there is not such thing as a
>> source release and a binary release, just a release. That
>> means the one true LICENSE file includes all the source
>> and binary components.
>>
> And again Pedro, I have not used the term "source release" or "binary
> release". I said, "we have binary as well as source packages in our
> release.".  That is perfectly accurate.

I noticed but you implied it when speaking of LICENSE_source
LICENSE_binary.

>> Rob's statement is not exactly false because we have an
>> exception in our release process as for the italian case
>> (and so far only the italian case) we will be bundling GPLd
>> dictionaries.
>>
> Not exactly false == true

You really need to take a course on logic.

>> Adding the GPL to our LICENSE file would be pretty
>> confusing for our users, besides this is only for the
>> italian case, so I think for that case having the GPL
>> in the dictionary should be enough. Also, we should
>> add a disclaimer that dictionaries (if included) don't
>> constitute derivate works.
>>
>> All just IMHO, I won't block any attempt to automate
>> the generation of those files, in fact, I think I'll just not
>> touch those files anymore :).
>>
> Think of it this way:  Are there any additional obligations placed on
> someone who redistributes our binary packages, based on the additional
> components included there?  Does the ASF have any obligations, in
> terms of required notices, etc., for the binaries we distribute?
>
> Note, for example, clause 3.3 of the MPL 1.1:

We include MPL already in the LICENSE (category B section).

Even lawyers can distinguish if they are using binaries or source.

Pedro.

Mime
View raw message