www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marshall Schor <...@schor.com>
Subject Augmenting License/Notice files when distributing binary modules
Date Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:21:21 GMT
One of our binary release packages includes a built version of Apache APR as a 
library, as a .so file (on linux, for example).  Does including this mean that

(1) we need to augment whatever our LICENSE and NOTICE files are, with what 
Apache APR binary packages have for License / Notice files (unless we can verify 
our "build" is excluding whatever the particular License/Notice clause applies to)?

Or,

(2) is it sufficient to state in a README that we build and distribute 
particular levels of these Apache projects (for example, APR), and depend on 
users to discover the licenses / notices that go with those?  I don't think the 
LICENSE and NOTICE filesa are a part of the binary APR artifact (the .so file) - 
at least I didn't know how to find them, and couldn't see them.

I know that 
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices gives 
some guidance, and in this case it seems the LICENSE file should be augmented, 
as well as the NOTICE (because in a binary (not source) release, the artifact 
(the .so file) doesn't seem to have the NOTICE information in a handy spot.

I think the answer is (1), but I'm no expert (which is why I'm asking).

-Marshall Schor

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


Mime
View raw message