incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
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 <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> 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 <pfg@apache.org> 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.
>>

Mime
View raw message