openoffice-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 Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:52:11 GMT

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 at
>> 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 and
>> 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_aggreted files.

Best regards, Oliver.

View raw message