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 15:23:14 GMT
Hi Pedro,

On 29.03.2012 15:55, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> 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
>>>> 3rd party components need to be considered. E.g. Apache APR
>>>> - It seems that notices of 3rd party components which are licensed under
>>>> 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 political
> reasons behind the FSF's hate for this clause (somewhat related to
> obliterating the individual in favor of a collective entity owning the code).

Thank you very much for this clarification.
I am just doing the wrong stuff - Thx a lot.

>>> 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.

I more or less can understand this from your point of view.

Our users which want to use our office it is hardly understandable, why certain 
stuff is not directly available after they have installed the software. I think 
these kind of users do not care about which open-source license the pieces have 
they are using.

Best regards, Oliver.

> We are about to repeat the PostgreSQL - GNU readline+OpenSSL incident:
> Cheers,
> Pedro.

View raw message