www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Date Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:53:19 GMT

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...

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

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.

> - 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.


Keep up the good work,

Marvin Humphrey

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

View raw message