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: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Date Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:43:36 GMT
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
<orwittmann@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 23.03.2012 13:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 23.03.2012 12:47, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Before starting to work on these files I had a look at the corresponding
>>> Apache
>>> policies/rules/... regarding these files - [1], [2], [3]
>>>
>>> I have discovered [9] which more or less state that an entry into the
>>> NOTICE
>>> file is mostly not needed and depends on the specific license of the 3rd
>>> party
>>> component.
>>> Having a look at the LICENSE and NOTICE file of Apache httpd project
>>> seems to
>>> confirm this.
>>>
>>> Pedro, do you consider [9] when you did your hard work on the NOTICE
>>> file?
>>>
>>> Mentors (and others too, of course), do you have certain advise what kind
>>> of
>>> wordings in a license makes an entry in the NOTICE file necessary?
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>> [2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>> [3] http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>>>
>>> [9] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Looking at the LICENSE files of Apache httpd and subversion projects
>> reveals
>> that for each license in the LICENSE file the corresponding
>> source/component is
>> identified. Some like:
>> - "For the mod_mime_magic component:"
>> - "For the modules\mappers\mod_imagemap.c component:"
>>
>> Is such an identification necessary in the LICENSE file?
>> I did not find information about the form of the LICENSE file content on
>> apache.org.
>
>
> Further searching helps here ;-)
> I have found [4]:
> <quote>
> ...
> All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should be
> included in the LICENSE document. This LICENSE (courtesy of Apache HTTPD) is
> a good example. The Apache License is at the top of the LICENSE document.
> After that, the license for each non-Apache licensed component is included,
> along with a clear explanation of which files that license applies to.
> ...
> </quote>
> Thus, I derive from this best practice that an identification of the files
> to which the mentioned license in the LICENSE file applies to should be
> given.
>

But note the further complexity with AOO, that we have binary as well
as source packages in our release.  And our binary packages includes
3rd party category-b libraries that are not included in our source
package.  So we need to make this clear somehow in our LICENSE.

Maybe we need a LICENCE_source and LICENCE_binary file in SVN that
contains the respective.  Then we can rename or cat that together to
produce the appropriate license for a package.

-Rob

> [4]
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
>
>
> Best regards, Oliver.

Mime
View raw message