incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:55:14 GMT
On 03/29/12 06:19, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> 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.

No , that's not the advertisement clause: you can identify it because on
the classic BSD license it's the third of 4 clauses. We almost don't have
any code under that license (OpenSSL is the typical example).

> Why does this mean that we have to cover it in the NOTICE file?

The advertisement clause is this one:

" 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the <organization>."

It is somewhat inconvenient for end distributors but there are deep 
reasons behind the FSF's hate for this clause (somewhat related to
obliterating the individual in favor of a collective entity owning the 

>> 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.
OK, I read it. I agree that would be the ideal but still that is not 
legally consistent.

IMHO, it's really a bad idea to bundle GPL stuff in the binary packages.

We are about to repeat the PostgreSQL - GNU readline+OpenSSL incident:



View raw message