www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Including generated documents (pdf) in release pack - Apache Stonehenge
Date Fri, 15 May 2009 21:35:57 GMT
On May 15, 2009, at 5:43 AM, Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar wrote:
>>> We are working on the first(M1) release of Apache Stonehenge
>>> (incubator) Project. We have included some pdf documents in the
>>> release artifact [1] (source pack as well as binary pack), which are
>>> generated from wiki pages [2]. Is it ok to include them in the  
>>> release
>>> artifact (specially, in source artifacts)? (Since these documents  
>>> are
>>> not in svn, it was suggested better to check with legal-discuss  
>>> [3]).
>>>
>>> If it is ok to include, do we need any licencing information  
>>> included?
>>
>> AFAIK, it is Ok to put generated files in the source releases, and I
>> don't think you need any extra licensing information for the PDF, but
>> should probably mention trademarks and logos are not Apache licensed,
>> and any downstream use of those would need to get clearance from the
>> PRC.

What?  I don't know where Niclas is getting this advice, but it is  
wrong.
The Apache License already excludes the trademark issues.  Therefore,
everything is covered by the Apache License to the extent the AL covers.

There is no need to say anything else.  Even if there were something  
else
to say, it would go in README (not NOTICE).  The only things that ever
belong in NOTICE are attributions explicitly required by the copyright
owner for legal redistribution.  Documentation, credits, or optional
notices do not belong in NOTICE.

....Roy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message