Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 81139 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2008 03:02:03 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Jan 2008 03:02:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 39779 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2008 03:01:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 39604 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2008 03:01:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 39581 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jan 2008 03:01:48 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:01:48 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_OIMO,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [66.112.202.2] (HELO mail.devtech.com) (66.112.202.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:01:24 +0000 Received: from localhost. ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.devtech.com (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.1-dev) with SMTP ID 538 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:01:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Noel J. Bergman" To: "Legal Discuss" Subject: RE: Notice and License files in JavaDoc jars Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:00:58 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <25aac9fc0801091054j430266c7m4d45f920bfa36d5b@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > > In the case of JavaDocs for our own code, it seems to me that the only > > missing piece would be the license. > Is this because the Javadoc files should already contain [our copyright]? Henri's response is more correct, so go with it. What I had in mind was simply the idea that for our own code's javadocs, there wouldn't need to be inclusion of anyone else's copyright, since the foreign material would not be present. As Roy has pointed out elsewhere, that just means that the content of the NOTICE would differ from artifact to artifact. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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