www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Date Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:56:55 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message