incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Date Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:01:55 GMT
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <> wrote:

> Hi
> Thx for the input so far.
> My work stopped, because of the ongoing discussion on legal-discuss. Greg
> Stein has started at legal-discuss a corresponding thread, named "use of
> LICENSE and NOTICE". To be sure how to proceed I will send the following
> information to legal-discuss:
> List of links on with information regarding the content of the
> LICENSE file and the NOTICE file which I have found:
> [1]**src-headers.html#notice<>
> [2]**resolved.html#required-third-**party-notices<>
> [3]**src-headers.html#header-**
> existingcopyright<>
> [4]**licenses/example-NOTICE.txt<>
> [5]**guides/releasemanagement.html#**
> best-practice-license<>
> [6]**guides/releasemanagement.html#**
> best-practice-notice<>
> My intepretation of this information and the information given in the
> thread at legal-discuss is the following:
> - Content of LICENSE file - general conclusion:
> -- Apache license at the top
> -- Licenses of all 3rd party components included in the specific package
> of a release inclusive a clear identification of the files to whose the
> license apply.
> - Content of NOTICE file - general conclusion:
> -- Standard copyright notice as given at [1] at the top
> -- Notices which are required by 3rd party component licenses which should
> be quite rare.

One other thing in the NOTICE file, which is talked about in [3] above.
That is relocated copyright notices.   For example, with the ODF Toolkit,
many of original files had an IBM copyright statement in them. We removed
these notices for the individual files and put a single line in the NOTICE
reading, "Portions copyright IBM, 2009-2011. All rights reserved."   I
think the equivalent here would be the files that Andrew updated from
Oracle.   If Oracle wants a similar statement it would go in the NOTICE

> - Further conclusions by orw for the Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
> project:
> -- We (AOO incubating) are planning to release a source package and binary
> packages. The binary package will include certain category-b licensed
> components. Thus, I assume that we need for each package an own LICENSE
> file and an own NOTICE file.
> -- The LICENSE file and the NOTICE file for the source package will cover
> the licenses of our source files.
> -- The LICENSE files and the NOTICE files for the binary package will
> cover additionally all licenses from the enabled category-b licensed
> components.
> If there are no objections I will continue my work regarding the above
> interpretations.
> Best regards, Oliver.
> 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.
>> Thanks in advance, Oliver.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message