www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From simon <simon.kitch...@chello.at>
Subject Re: LICENSE and NOTICE files and SVN
Date Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:24:45 GMT

On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 12:14 -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008, at 11:13 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >> On Jan 11, 2008 7:53 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> I think the answer is:  "No, but it's nice".  Equivalent to the
> >>> question of whether the website should have a page saying what the
> >>> license is.
> >>
> >> I disagree - I think all of our projects have to have LICENSE and
> >> NOTICE in SVN.  Not having them is silly.  Otherwise, where would
> >> their NOTICE file be kept?  -- justin
> >
> > As you may have noticed from lots of posts recently, the maven- 
> > remote-resources plugin uses a (configurable) template to generate  
> > NOTICE files from other project information and uses an (again  
> > configurable) LICENSE file from a (configurable) resource bundle.   
> > Could you explain why it is more silly to use this customized  
> > generation strategy than to have hundreds of identical copies of  
> > the apache license in a project's svn?
> >
> > One possible danger of including the NOTICE file in svn is that  
> > it's likely to be audited by the PMC only when a release is  
> > prepared.  Including it in svn may imply to the unwary observer  
> > that it is accurate at all times.  Wouldn't requiring it to be  
> > accurate at all times mean the PMC would have to vote on the NOTICE  
> > file after every commit?
> 
> Our subversion is published within our own development groups and
> made accessible to third-parties via svn externals.
> 
> That publication (even without a formal release) is still under the
> terms of our license, and because the ASF requires a couple lines
> in NOTICE for all of our projects, the LICENSE and NOTICE files must
> be in subversion (typically at the level under trunk).  The contents
> are based on the source code within that tree.
> 
> Tweaking maven such that it appends to the NOTICE file any additional
> missing (non source tree) required notices for a particular build is
> okay, though I bet it will be error-prone.

Firstly, does this mean that it is ok for the NOTICE file published in a
released module to be different (have more information) than the one
checked in to svn?

Secondly, in the case of Java we are releasing what is effectively a
single ".so" file, and embedding the license/notice in it. You would
expect the notice in this case to include NOTICE (ie copyright) info
about projects that it *links* to (ie depends on, but does not itself
contain)?

Thanks,
Simon


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message