Return-Path: 
 <ooo-dev-return-15408-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 07EDD9AC1
	for <apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:25:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 23186 invoked by uid 500); 23 Mar 2012 15:25:32 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 23134 invoked by uid 500); 23 Mar 2012 15:25:32 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ooo-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <ooo-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 23126 invoked by uid 99); 23 Mar 2012 15:25:32 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:25:32 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [98.138.90.79] (HELO nm16.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com)
 (98.138.90.79)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:25:23 +0000
Received: from [98.138.90.48] by nm16.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
 23 Mar 2012 15:25:02 -0000
Received: from [98.138.84.47] by tm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
 23 Mar 2012 15:25:02 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp115.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
 23 Mar 2012 15:25:02 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 793326.7100.bm@smtp115.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: occ5kRAVM1nBmnDAfxKp4Gpll7WbVERv0tgb2wnuy8FGjJu
 DTZy2G7jJMgTIuTEF8ooE9kSc2AIyVdM3.UzFN3rigrLApsp8RVddLrEV3z2
 h_QT92WKR7YwqRA3pxlhtx4hYcw7g7N.DHukp12CznmQNUaoWrK_3txFLTEy
 VE2w5TGnfNvysctxP5G1FGcz.ujGsRY7yPKtNjKfsFtKnmC_xBQreC2Wd_kz
 Ki2x8UD.01_QC98F_RErRNE5zP3_IBcQWvFbnQGtOoz7k_VG7DrTQ34TFJoB
 vm4i9Irw1kKKmUPBEIuACLyuHR7tM223Ta1AH2CeO2tVGNbYsMTMsXjpLMxX
 Xl9ud6AC57w7EOKAlATo_BlE_0PX_MqOH5kOt5ZfOS4t9CjonKJj._n0rakI
 Da4r56fqZ86bZ7F7eI6e.CvKyOw--
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xcjD0guswBAZaPPIbxpWwLcp9Unf
Received: from [192.168.10.102] (pfg@200.118.157.7 with plain)
        by smtp115.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP;
 23 Mar 2012 08:25:02 -0700 PDT
Message-ID: <4F6C95CC.8030700@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:25:00 -0500
From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
 rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120226 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
References: <4F6C5701.6060501@googlemail.com>
 <4F6C62DC.8010101@googlemail.com> <4F6C732C.4040004@googlemail.com>
 <4F6C7D1A.4010302@googlemail.com>
 <CAP-ksojd6zQ2iw3UXGWCquo3Z_CXuEA=3h0XaOQLxVJu5Qr-PA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksojd6zQ2iw3UXGWCquo3Z_CXuEA=3h0XaOQLxVJu5Qr-PA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

On 03/23/12 08:43, Rob Weir wrote:
> ...

> 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.

This is not accurate.

As I have mentioned tirelessly there is not such thing as a
source release and a binary release, just a release. That
means the one true LICENSE file includes all the source
and binary components.

Rob's statement is not exactly false because we have an
exception in our release process as for the italian case
(and so far only the italian case) we will be bundling GPLd
dictionaries.

Adding the GPL to our LICENSE file would be pretty
confusing for our users, besides this is only for the
italian case, so I think for that case having the GPL
in the dictionary should be enough. Also, we should
add a disclaimer that dictionaries (if included) don't
constitute derivate works.

All just IMHO, I won't block any attempt to automate
the generation of those files, in fact, I think I'll just not
touch those files anymore :).

Pedro.