www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: LICENSE and NOTICE files and SVN
Date Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:20:48 GMT
Hi Bill,

I just read [1] what I think is the current policy regarding NOTICE  
(at least, it's the policy that I'm using for the projects that I'm  
involved in) and found this at the top of the FAQ section:
"When must Apache projects comply with this policy?

All releases created and distributed after November 1, 2006 must  
comply with this policy."

I can't understand this as meaning that the svn repository must have  
LICENSE and NOTICE files at their root directories. It specifically  
talks about releases being created and distributed, not just sitting  
there in the svn repository.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying what the policy is,  
just saying that the policy [1] that is well documented (and many  
folks obviously haven't read) doesn't appear to address the specific  
questions that many of us have.

So if the policy is intended to require LICENSE and NOTICE files at  
the root of the svn directory (whatever the heck that is defined to  
be) the policy [1] should define what the root is and that the  
LICENSE and NOTICE files must be there. And under what circumstances  
these files have to be updated. Maybe you could copy/paste David  
Jenks's excellent questions into the answer section.

Craig

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

On Jan 13, 2008, at 3:43 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> The NOTICE file exists to fulfill our obligations under our license
>>> and the licenses of any third-party code that we redistribute.
>>> We try to be as proactive about that as possible.  The NOTICE is
>>> in subversion because the board added a notice that all of our
>>> projects must carry.  It needs to be in subversion when a
>>> third-party something that requires such a notice is also within
>>> subversion.  Finally, each release package's NOTICE must reflect
>>> all of the required notices of all of the parts within that package.
>>>
>>> Whether or not all three are the same static file or each one
>>> is dynamically constructed based on the package/tree in question
>>> just doesn't matter.  What matters is that the required notices
>>> are always in the relevant NOTICE when they are required.
>
> +1 (and the background examples/rational were well put).
>
>> I'm afraid that this doesn't address my question for a pointer to  
>> where it is documented.
>
> Certainly it's an FAQ that should be documented somewhere, but AIUI we
> never had a specific guide to cvs / svn policies, we only have a long
> history of collective wisdom...
>
>> I don't think this email thread archive qualifies as the  
>> definitive policy. :-(
>
> Contrawise, it's exactly the policy and a good statement of why it
> exists; and as you point out it's worth adding to a document  
> somewhere.
> Roy was being nice enough to point it out to you, but it certainly is
> and has been policy since we permitted copyrights to be placed in an
> external file instead of each individual file.
>
> Bill

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message