www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 3rd party policy
Date Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:01:34 GMT
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2008, at 5:27 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> If the AL or ASL licensed project was from outside Apache, then you
>> definitely have to have a mention in NOTICE and you should call it out
>> license wise.
>
> No.  NOTICE only contains attributions that are required by the
> distributed software's license or explicitly requested by the author.

Not disagreeing... I think :) Would AL 2.0 (iff there is a NOTICE) and
ASL 1.1 both be requesting those?

The (weird?) view I have, I suspect, is that the NOTICE/LICENSE files
should be focused on the source code of the project and not a binary,
and decoupled, third party package that happens to ship in the same
tar.gz/zip. Decoupled packages should have their licenses listed
separately.

>> If it's from inside Apache, then you should have a mention in the
>> NOTICE (if you actually put it in your source imo) and the license
>> should be pointed to.
>
> No, all Apache software has the same relevant notice text -- it only
> needs to be mentioned once.  The collective copyright thing that
> the board added a couple years ago (silly, IMO) is only applicable
> to the package for that mentioned project.

Given that that's there though - the 'correct' way to handle it seems
to be to mention it for each separate NOTICE.  It seems okay for us to
roll it all together because we're the same entity, but the NOTICE
files may have other things mentioned in them and having people
concatenate the various NOTICE files seems like a poor solution in the
decoupled world.

Sebb talks about not having seen the approach of a package structure
with licenses, (ie: lib/foo/LICENSE + lib/foo/foo.jar +
lib/foo/NOTICE), but it's very commonly used in Java distributions. In
C, usually GPL, I find it's more common for a single COPYING file to
have the licensing and copyrights. Both make a lot of a lot of sense
and it depends on the decoupling.

Basically your typical Java download is more of a collective work,
while your typical C download is more of a derivative work (to abuse
the legal terms). Scripting languages tend to be more like C - I guess
it depends whether you usually ship binary or source.

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