www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 3rd party policy
Date Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:11:25 GMT
On 03/06/2008, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 2:56 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On 03/06/2008, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>  >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 2:38 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >>  > On 03/06/2008, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>  >>  >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 2:20 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >>  >>  > Can Creative Commons be added to the list?
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >> CC isn't a single license, but a collection of licenses.  So, you'd
>  >>  >>  need to be far more precise.  Some variants would be Category X,
some
>  >>  >>  would be A.  -- justin
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >
>  >>  > I did not realise that.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Let's start with
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Creative Commons Attribution License
>  >>  > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5)
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Yes - but we ought to discuss whether we want to have a 3rd-party.xml
>  >>  file in each project as a part of that. CCA, as seen in an earlier
>  >>  thread, has attribution clauses we are less likely to obey if we don't
>  >>  have a standard approach to identifying projects distributed. It will
>  >>  also help with CPL and its ilk.
>  >
>  > Not another file ... surely the NOTICE file is the place for attributions?
>  > Don't we just need to provide sample text for it?
>
>
> I'd like to see every included third party package be referred to with:
>
>  * Name
>  * URL to canonical site
>  * License name
>  * License url if available
>  * Project level copyright statements.
>
>  The problem with putting that in NOTICE is that someone will point out
>  that the license information should be in LICENSE or next to the third
>  party package. Also, NOTICE should (imo) only include copyright
>  statements that refer to copyright included in the project's source,
>  not in third party packages it redistributes.

As far as I can see, all the information above (apart perhaps from the
URLs) is already required in either the N or L files.

>  Copyright is a bit of a pain for a third party package; are we really
>  going to suck every copyright statement out of their source (which is
>  a pain given we only have binary usually) and put it in a file? Sure
>  we'll do a top level file, but often the copyright statements are lost
>  in the source.

If the binary is distributed without specifying attribution
requirements it seems to me that is  not our problem...

>  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


Mime
View raw message