www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LEGAL-27) LICENSE/NOTICE content vs package content
Date Sat, 19 Dec 2009 07:57:18 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-27?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792814#action_12792814
] 

Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-27:
------------------------------------

Summary (proposal for resolved.html):

"The LICENSE and NOTICE file must be applicable to the ASF product they are included with.
They may however be applicable to other ASF products providing it is clearly marked. 

This means that if a project releases 5 artifacts (for example source.tgz, binary.tgz, binary.jar,
javadoc.jar and source.jar), a single LICENSE file could exist provided that it clearly identifies
what parts apply to what artifact. It wouldn't matter that the javadoc.jar, for example, included
information about other artifacts. Another example might be binary distribution for Windows,
Linux or OS X that clearly state which 3rd party products are used in each. "

Planning to add in 2 weeks if consensus (lazy or otherwise). 


> LICENSE/NOTICE content vs package content
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-27
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-27
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> Most apache releases included a LICENSE/NOTICE tuple (I will refer to them as LICENSE/NOTICE
tuple to make it easier, even if they deserve different treatment sometimes) including references
to every 3rd party work in that svn tree. This LICENSE/NOTICE tuple was then added to every
package released from that tree even if some of the packages created didn't really include
all of the work referenced there.
> To my understand this was the standard accepted practice until a broader maven adoption.
Using maven most projects started releasing jar-packages (and not only the bin/src packages)
so the question about the LICENSE/NOTICE oversized content came out.
> If people agree that is good to have a NOTICE/LICENSE specific to each release I think
it should be written in a policy but I would hope this is not enforced because this would
probably be a cause for limiting the number of packages released (creating a new assembly
for the same work is much less work than mantaining a special NOTICE/LICENSE for it).
> Here is the "practice" as described by David Jencks to me:
> ----
> released artifacts should include LICENSE and NOTICE files applying exactly to their
content.   If this goal is not achieved, its better to have unnecessary stuff in the LICENSE/NOTICE
files than missing stuff.
> ----
> The introduction of the 1.4 version for org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle changed
the LICENSE/NOTICE added to jars to not include dependencies by default, so people upgrading
from 1.3 will ask this again and again.
> A clear policy IMHO is also a good way to let some smart people create/improve maven
plugins to better manage what the policy says. No written policy means that we all do what
the plugin developer prefererred ;-) (kudos to plugin developers)

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


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


Mime
View raw message