Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (idunn.apache.osuosl.org: domain gmail.com designates
 66.249.82.227 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: good
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=C8Xew6a7Q0PSeDkCPwo4iy+BoJs9fCaupBF2KNkNGhai5YY8epUxY2zdiLIIvc0yBG/Y1sxDPQ3fUp4gvauWBb6pkAQe0narQGhOIYwLT3f19WvALtnJiC5AiiY4bVQQ4W4cmUSf2jpt0UlD8bj2aaniyxC5wG6few6PL7YZ61c=
Message-ID: <2d12b2f00609221339h103a8a4aka6caf0c6001ae209@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:39:48 -0700
From: "Henri Yandell" <bayard@apache.org>
Sender: hyandell@gmail.com
To: "Andrew McIntyre" <mcintyre.a@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Clarification of license text policy for documentation
Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <54ac72d70609211557u23a1c521q6df294b24f8a8dbd@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <54ac72d70609132336x40e1a360ycd3a31087617f825@mail.gmail.com>
	 <54ac72d70609211557u23a1c521q6df294b24f8a8dbd@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/21/06, Andrew McIntyre <mcintyre.a@gmail.com> wrote:
> Could someone please clarify whether or not the source file header
> text or the notice text is appropriate for visible documentation that
> is compiled as the collective work of an Apache project? Does the "may
> include" in the text quoted above mean that the source file header
> text or the notice text is sufficient if it appears on the front page
> of the javadoc or other generated documentation, and that it is not
> necessary to insert some kind of notice into each page of generated
> documentation? And if so, which is more appropriate, the source file
> header text or the notice text?

So there are a couple of FAQ entries that cover the basics of this:

* Does this policy apply to documentation files included in a release?
   -> Yes.
* Does this policy also apply to content displayed on our web sites?
   -> No. <snip explanation>

If it's a question of generated documentation as a part of site
authoring; ie) xdoc/anakia, xslt, then the 'Yes' for distribution
above applies.

If it's a question of generated documentation from tools, then I think
we have to go with it being a 'No', even if it is distributed. Trying
to figure out how to put it in the output of every tool is going to be
insane.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org