www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Volkert <tvolk...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Date Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:23:29 GMT
>
> * I'd avoid mentioning the license terms in the NOTICE file. Simply
> state the attribution where required, for example:
>
>    This software contains images distributed as part of the
>    Silk Icon Set, developed by Mark James.
>    http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/
>

Done


>
> * Some of the entries (BSD licensed ones) probably don't need to be
> mentioned in the NOTICE file. See LEGAL-59 and LEGAL-62 for
> background.
>

It doesn't feel right not giving attribution.  The LICENSE file shows what
they're licensed under, but the NOTICE file seems like the right place to
give attribution, with a URL.


> * For ALv2 dependencies like Tomcat, Groovy, etc., instead of stating
> the dependency and the license it's under, you'll need to look inside
> the NOTICE file of those dependencies and copy the relevant parts into
> the Pivot NOTICE.
>

Ok, I did that, and groovy and smack seem to contain no such notices, and
Tomcat's notices are not relevant to the Pivot code that is compiled against
the servlet jar.  Thus, I think we're safe in just removing those sections
from the NOTICE file.


> * I agree with Sebb's point about the divider lines, but it's your
> call if you prefer to keep them. ALv2 just requires a "readable copy
> of the attribution notices" in the NOTICE file, so the extra
> formatting isn't too troublesome.
>

Eh - I just removed them; I didn't feel too strongly about them.

See the updated NOTICE and LICENSE files for the recent changes.

-T

Mime
View raw message