www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <orwittm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:51:09 GMT

On 27.03.2012 23:53, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Hi,
> I looked over your plan and to the limit of my understanding, it seems sound.
> I also read through the AOO dev list thread where the plan was hashed out
> (<http://markmail.org/message/67kwkxcs5fubpua3>), and came away very
> encouraged.  In particular, the participation of representatives from
> companies such as IBM who wish to build on the source release seems to be
> contributing to a positive dynamic -- there is a strong incentive to get this
> stuff right so that their downstream commerical products are protected to the
> maximum extent possible against licensing snafus.
> Just a couple minor remarks...

Thanks for the following remarks.

> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
> <orwittmann@googlemail.com>  wrote:
>> - Content of NOTICE file - general conclusion:
>> -- Standard copyright notice as given at [1] at the top
>> -- Notices which are required by 3rd party component licenses which should
>> be quite rare.
> Two cases not covered explicitly earlier in this legal-discuss thread were:
>    * Nested dependencies.

Is it right that you think here of the LICENSE and the NOTICE file of 3rd party 
components which are Apache projects, like Apache APR?

>    * NOTICE files from Apache-licensed dependencies, particularly those from
>      outside the ASF.

Is it right that you think here of the NOTICE file of 3rd party components which 
are licensed under the Apache license, but are not Apache projects, like serf?

> NOTICE files of Apache-licensed dependencies will have to be examined and
> their content likely carried forward into the AOO NOTICE file -- for instance,
> a non-ASF Apache-licensed dependency may contain a copyright notice in NOTICE
> which will need to be duped.  And of course nested dependencies impose the
> same licensing requirements as any first-order dependencies, but may have to
> be ferreted out.
> The punchline is that ALv1.1, 4-clause BSD, and esoteric licenses with
> advertising clauses are not the only ones that may require NOTICE content.

Yes, that is what I am expecting.
As I am not an expert on software licenses I hope that more experience people 
will give corresponding advice here ;-)

>> - Further conclusions by orw for the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project:
>> -- We (AOO incubating) are planning to release a source package and binary
>> packages. The binary package will include certain category-b licensed
>> components. Thus, I assume that we need for each package an own LICENSE file
>> and an own NOTICE file.
>> -- The LICENSE file and the NOTICE file for the source package will cover
>> the licenses of our source files.
>> -- The LICENSE files and the NOTICE files for the binary package will cover
>> additionally all licenses from the enabled category-b licensed components.
> +1
> Keep up the good work,


Best regards, Oliver.

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

View raw message