incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Date Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:01:35 GMT
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Joe Schaefer <> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Rob Weir <>
>> To:
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of
2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Pedro Giffuni <> wrote:
>>>  Hi Dennis;
>>>  On 03/19/12 11:55, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>>  Apache releases handle the equivalent of the THIRDPARTYLICENSES by
>>>>  combined use of the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
>>>  We are aware of that. The THIRDPARTYLICENSES thing is a left over from
>>>  the LGPL days and is not relevant for our purposes. I only use it as
>>>  reference but if someone else doing this stuff in another, more
>>>  systematic way, please raise your hand and I won't interfere.
>>>>    Also, as has been determined elsewhere, the NOTICE and LICENSE files
>> on
>>>>  a binary distribution may be different than on the source code because
>> of
>>>>  additional third-party material that may be embedded in a binary
>> release.
>>>  It was also determined that the LICENSE file would only carry the AL2.
>>>  At this time whatever was "determined" is not really relevant. I
>> would
>>>  prefer to have some reference for this: the branding guide doesn't
>>>  mention anything about the LICENSE file, other than the fact that it
>>>  exists.
>> My experience from working on an ODF Toolkit release is that LICENSE
>> file contains the text of ALv2,as well as the text of all other
>> licenses included in the release.  NOTICES includes the Apache
>> copyright as well as any other *required* notices that the other
>> licenses might state.
>> And no, this is not at all obvious from reading anything on the Apache
>> website,in the podling guide, etc.  We did catch this until we put a
>> RC up for a vote.
> Well I'm fairly certain explicit instructions for what belongs in the LICENSE
> file are written down both on the www site and in the incubator docs, as I'm
> sure I both read and wrote some of it.  Patches to make it clearer are welcome.

Well, escaped me initially on the ODF Toolkit project was that this
information is buried under "best practices" and is a "should".  But
in practice this seems to be treated as a requirement and a "must".
So an explicit suggestion?  Sure.

>>>>  When the IP clearance is completed, the THIRDPARTYLICENSES notice
>> should
>>>>  disappear and the NOTICE and LICENSE files should carry the necessary
>>>>  information instead.
>>>  Replying to your other email, yes RAT is interesting but we are currently
>>>  excluding a lot of files from that analysis.
>>>  Pedro.

View raw message