www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Date Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:33:00 GMT
Roy Fielding was quoted as saying:
> > The short answer is that LICENSE contains the terms on
> > redistribution/use, whereas NOTICE contains the minimal 
> > set of information required by those LICENSE terms in 
> > the sense of advertising clauses and stuff that needs 
> > to be displayed in an "About..." box.

I'll suggest once again that it would also be helpful to our licensees and
customers to include all known notices about potential or asserted patent
claims in the NOTICE file. A recently discussed example of a "restricted"
patent license from Adobe is something that ought to be included in a NOTICE
file even though we have concluded that this doesn't affect Apache's
implementation of Adobe's claimed technology.

That NOTICE doesn't hurt anyone and it may help someone downstream who
decides to veer into unlicensed terrain.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Cell: 707-478-8932


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Davis [mailto:paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 10:57 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
> 
> Marvin,
> 
> Excellent pointers. That's enough to satisfy my curiosity. Roy's
> comment seems like a pretty good rule of thumb:
> 
> > The short answer is that LICENSE contains the terms on
> redistribution/use, whereas NOTICE contains the minimal > set of
> information required by those LICENSE terms in the sense of advertising
> clauses and stuff that needs to be > displayed in an "About..." box.
> 
> Thanks,
> Paul
> 
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Marvin Humphrey
> <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Paul Davis
> <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Is there a good list of common examples for requires third-party
> NOTICE
> >> sections?
> >
> > See <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-62>.  The common
> examples are
> > apparently 4-clause BSD and Apache License 1.1.
> >
> >> [1] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-
> notices
> >
> > There was discussion of adding examples to that FAQ text, which to me
> seems
> > like it would have helped a lot -- but that was apparently nixed in
> order to
> > keep things "simple".
> >
> > I found this comment from Roy illuminating as it speaks to the
> motivation
> > behind having a NOTICE file in the first place:
> >
> >    The short answer is that LICENSE contains the terms on
> redistribution/use,
> >    whereas NOTICE contains the minimal set of information required by
> those
> >    LICENSE terms in the sense of advertising clauses and stuff that
> needs to be
> >    displayed in an "About..." box.
> >
> >    The historical reason why we have them separated is because GPL
> requires the
> >    preservation of notices even when it subsumes all other licenses,
> thus
> >    preserving our advertising clause in a way that would otherwise
> have been
> >    incompatible with the GPL.
> >
> > I almost feel like I understand NOTICE after reading that. :P
> >
> > After reading LEGAL-62, LEGAL-59 and the surrounding discussion, I've
> adopted
> > the following logic for deciding whether a chunk of IP requires
> > putting something
> > into NOTICE:
> >
> >    IF a copyright notification has been relocated to NOTICE
> >        THEN that relocated copyright notification belongs in NOTICE.
> >
> >    IF the license of a bundled dependency is 4-clause BSD or Apache
> 1.x,
> >        THEN something belongs in NOTICE.
> >    ELSE IF the license contains some sort of advertising clause
> >        THEN something belongs in NOTICE.
> >    ELSE the license does not require putting anything into NOTICE.
> >
> > After applying that logic, not much ends up in the typical NOTICE
> file.
> >
> > Regardless, IMO the required content of the NOTICE file is so opaque
> and
> > confusing that it's guaranteed people will get it wrong much of the
> time.
> >
> > Marvin Humphrey
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org



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


Mime
View raw message