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 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:21:52 GMT
On 04/06/2008, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 2nd try, bitten by odd "reply" settings...
>
>  On Jun 3, 2008, at 4:01 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> > On 03/06/2008, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Fair point.
> > >
> > > So instead this becomes a recommendation of:
> > >
> > > * Must link to URLs of third party dependencies.
> > >
> > > Do we say that should be in a README?
> > >
> > > I don't think it should go in the NOTICE for the reasons above (it's
> > > not in our source). Maybe the LICENSE files would be the best place.
> > > It means encouraging people to modify the third party license files
> > > (if they use that method of identifying the license) by placing the
> > > url to the project at the top of the file.
> > >
> >
> > There must be LICENSE file containing the AL2.0.
> >
> > If there are additional license files, then these must be linked from
> > the main LICENSE file, so it's a trivial matter to add the URL there,
> > along with the pointer to the local copy of the 3rd party license
> > file. No need to alter that file.
> >
> > AIUI, it must be possible to start with the LICENSE file and find all
> > the licenses.
> > Users should not have to guess which other files contain licenses, or
> > where these files are in the directory structure.
> >
> >
>
>  I'm not convinced that the LICENSE and NOTICE files which are intended to
> contain the minimum possible legal goo are appropriate places for the kind
> of helpful but not necessarily required information you are talking about.

What info is not required?
As far as I can tell, only the URLs might qualify.

> The maven-remote-resources plugin is now including a META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
> file with this sort of information for the convenience of users.  It can be
> assembled more or less automatically from poms for maven projects whereas
> the LICENSE and NOTICE files still need careful human review, especially for
> aggregations.

AFAIK META-INF only applies to Java projects.
L & N etc also apply to non-Java projects.

>  One case where this is handy if you are redistributing asl licensed
> projects from elsewhere that do not provide any notice files nor any legal
> files nor pom in the published jar.  You don't need another license file,
> nor a mention in NOTICES, but its pretty handy to have a place to find out
> where the code came from.

In that case I agree it's useful, but this thread is about what is necessary.

>  thanks
>  david jencks
>
> >
> > >  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
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  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
>
>

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