incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Date Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:34:18 GMT

On 02.04.2012 16:52, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi,
> On 28.03.2012 11:18, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>> Hi
>> On 27.03.2012 16:54, 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]
>>> [2]
>>> [3]
>>> [4]
>>> [5]
>>> [6]
>>> My intepretation of this information and the information given in the thread
>>> 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.
>>> - 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
>>> 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.
>> There is already feedback on legal-discuss regarding my post.
>> A short summary:
>> - It seems that LICENSE file and NOTICE file of integrated Apache projects as
>> 3rd party components need to be considered. E.g. Apache APR
>> - It seems that notices of 3rd party components which are licensed under the
>> Apache license need to be considered. E.g. serf
>> - For our planned binary packages the bundled dictionary extensions need to be
>> considered.
>> If you are interested in further details you may have a look at
>> Thus, I will continue my work on this task:
>> - First I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the source package of
>> our release. These will be the files trunk/main/LICENSE and trunk/main/NOTICE
>> - Then I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the binary packages of
>> our release. I will name them trunk/main/LICENSE-binary-package and
>> trunk/main/NOTICE-binary-package
> I have finished my rework on the LICENSE file and the NOTICE file regarding the
> feedback we have got.
> Thx again to Pedro, who already did a great job on these files. And sorry Pedro,
> that I have completely restructured the files.
> I will continue to rework the newly created files LICENSE|NOTICE_category_b for
> category-b licensed stuff in our planned binary packages. Herbert (hdu) has
> already created these files with initial content from former LICENSE file and
> NOTICE file.
> Afterwards I will fill the LICENSE|NOTICE_aggregated files.

I have finished my work on LICENSE|NOTICE_category_b and 
LICENSE|NOTICE_aggregated files.

Herbert (hdu) is now working on delivering an concatinated LICENSE and NOTICE 
file in the binary package - issue 119168.

Best regards, Oliver.

View raw message