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 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:19:45 GMT
Hi Pedro,

On 28.03.2012 17:23, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello;
> Excuse me I don't really want to be involved in this discussion.
> I am simply tired of looking those files!

Thx again for your work on these files.

> However.. just my $0.02.
> On 03/28/12 04:18, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>> Hi
>> ...
>> There is already feedback on legal-discuss regarding my post.
>> A short summary:
>> - It seems that LICENSE file and NOTICE file of integrated Apache projects as
>> 3rd party components need to be considered. E.g. Apache APR
>> - It seems that notices of 3rd party components which are licensed under the
>> Apache license need to be considered. E.g. serf
>> - For our planned binary packages the bundled dictionary extensions need to be
>> considered.
>> If you are interested in further details you may have a look at
> The thread and particualrly Marvin Humphrey's first reply are very interesting
> but I don't agree with your summary.
> It is clear to me that the NOTICE file has only to purposes:
> 1. To cover for the advertisement clause the classic BSD licenses and ASL (1-1.1).

I am not an expert here. Thus, let me ask some questions to be sure:
If the advertising clause is included in the use BSD license then we have cover 
it in the NOTICE file. Right?
The advertising clause states that the name of the copyright holder shall not be 
used to promote the product which uses this software.
Why does this mean that we have to cover it in the NOTICE file?

> 2. To inform about probable patent issues.
> The above two things are typically the things that make software GPL incompatible.
> My conclusions are:
> (1) We are carrying way too much information in our NOTICE and LICENSE files.
> (2) The mere existance of a LICENSE file would indicate we cannot comply with
> the GPL. The GPL, however only applies to distribution not to use.
> I think to be consistent with (2) we cannot carry GPL notices, plus those are not
> shipped always. I think the way around that is add a general disclaimer note
> about "alien" extensions that may be included in a binary package that are under
> an independent license but don't constitute derived works.
>> Thus, I will continue my work on this task:
>> - First I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the source package
>> of our release. These will be the files trunk/main/LICENSE and trunk/main/NOTICE
> This must be stripped, Please note that we already carry information about other
> Apache Projects like Tomcat and Commons in our NOTICE file. The AL2 doesn't
> have an advertisement clause, so I think almost everything there should go except
> for OpenSSL and maybe the ICC stuff and the Adobe stuff.
>> - Then I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the binary packages
>> of our release. I will name them trunk/main/LICENSE-binary-package and
>> trunk/main/NOTICE-binary-package
> You can call make LICENSE addendums but then those vary with the specific
> dictionaries bundled. In the thread there is uncertainty if we should include
> such thing in LICENSE or if we should just note them prominently in the
> extensions themselves.

Have you seen William A. Rowe Jr.'s reply on legal-discuss. He stated that it 
should be included in the LICENSE file.

Best regards, Oliver.

View raw message