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 01:04:11 GMT
On 04/06/2008, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:01 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On 03/06/2008, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> >>  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.
> Yep.
>  > 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.
> Erm - 'linked from'? First time I've seen that as a mandate. The

The page


used to say (until April 25th 2008):

"If the distribution also contains source files not owned by the ASF,
such as third-party libraries, then be sure to leave their licenses intact.
In some cases, you may want to ask the author(s) of third-party code to
relicense it under the 2.0 license, since that will simplify the distribution.
Otherwise, you should append their license(s) to the LICENSE file at the
top of the distribution, or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to
the third-party license.  In all cases, be sure to obey the licensing
constraints of the original author.  If that is not possible, then do not
redistribute their work."

See http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/xdocs/dev/apply-license.xml
r645128 and before.

>  current setup afaik is:
>  * You must include the license for third party packages. These can be:
>  a) In the LICENSE file.


>  b) Next to the third party package.

Never seen that documented - seems like a bad idea as that could be
anywhere in the directory structure.

Having the pointers - or the actual licenses - in the main LICENSE
file seems much more sensible to me.

>  Having (b) also include a rule that you have to link to the third
>  party package location seems like a correct idea. I'm a bit concerned
>  it adds confusion by having different LICENSE files for source than
>  binary etc, but people can build LICENSE files as a part of their
>  build process if need be.
>  > 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've not seen it recorded as policy anywhere - seems worth doing

See above - it was documented once...

>  though. The advantage is worth the pain. Making it also include url
>  helps cover a bunch of license attributions which ask for the url to
>  be pointed to.

There's maybe a bit more work for the project, but it makes things
much easier for the user, and for most projects there are (hopefully!)
many more users than committers.

Also it only has to be done once for each 3rd party library etc.

>  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

View raw message