www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Determining unnecessary notices from Airavata distribution
Date Wed, 16 May 2012 17:53:31 GMT

On May 14, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Suresh Marru wrote:

> Sorry if my question was too vague.
> 
> Airavata depends on quite a few apache projects including Jackrabbit, Xerces Java, XmlBeans,
Axis2, Derby, Woden, xml-commons, and Xalan. Looking at the third party notice requirement
[1], I went through non-apache dependencies and included their notice files if explicitly
mentioned. Am i assuming correctly that we should include all NOTICEs of apache project dependencies?
Can you please point me to a reference which will provide guidance on what should be included
and what should be eliminated from [2].
> 
> Thanks,
> Suresh
> [1] - http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
> [2] - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/airavata/trunk/modules/distribution/src/main/resources/NOTICE

It looks like you've gotten some pretty good guidance from Ate and Sebb. I agree with their
comments.

As Sebb noted, this should not be there:

=========================================================================
==  NOTICE file corresponding to section 4(d) of the Apache License,   ==
==  Version 2.0, in this case for the Apache Airavata distribution.    ==
=========================================================================

Some people feel that annotations such as:

==========================================================================
EXTREME Lab Software Notice:

do not belong in the NOTICE file. And say that NOTICE files should be absolutely minimal.
I don't know that this is official policy and don't know of any documentation on that. IMO,
the annotations do help the reader to better understand the NOTICE file contents. So, IMO,
that's up to the project.

Beyond the above, the NOTICE file looks pretty good to me. As Sebb notes, the NOTICE file
should contain required information. If there are NOTICE file contents that you know do not
apply to your redistribution or are not required by their LICENSE, then you should remove
them. 

Hope that helps…

--kevan

> 
> On May 13, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Suresh Marru wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> During a recent release, we had the following comments on Airavata binary notice
file [1] and the corresponding license file [2]. Based on Ate's comments we removed the extra
NOTICEs for SLF4J, DOM4J, ICU4J and few others. But can some one please look at the NOTICE
file [1] and comments below and suggest examples on what still is unnecessary and removed?
  
>> 
>> On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
>> 
>>> * binary NOTICE file
>>> - I think there are some unneeded/unwanted entries still. Some notices and copyright
statements should not legally be needed nor are they requested.
>>> For instance for BSD/MIT like licenses which already are provided for verbatim
in the LICENSE file itself, there is no need to (and thus should not) be covered *also* in
the NOTICE file. Having those in the LICENSE file should be enough. And certainly so if the
3rd party artifact doesn't have or require an explicit NOTICE file itself. I think this applies
to the NOTICE entries for SLF4J, DOM4J, ICU4J, Jettison, etc. Please do check if each of these
notices really are necessary/required.
>>> 
>>> - A different thing is the NOTICE provided for commons-logging (1.1.1).
>>> The commons-logging jar come with a NOTICE file of its own (being an ASF release
it should). But IMO the additional content copied verbatim from that NOTICE file can be ignored
and thus removed. It concerns the following section:
>>> 
>>>  This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown organization'
>>>  - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3
>>>  - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12
>>>  - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1
>>> 
>>> Only log4j is actually bundled with airavata and as an ASF artifact doesn't need
extra NOTICE coverage. And as the other referenced artifacts aren't included or used there
is no need to 'honor' this part from the common-logging NOTICE file.
>>> The ASL 2.0 license sections 4.d) says: "[...], excluding those notices that
do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works."
>> 
>> On May 1, 2012, at 11:18 AM, sebb wrote:
>> 
>>> The NOTICE file in the binary archive contains the following:
>>> 
>>> =========================================================================
>>> ==  NOTICE file corresponding to section 4(d) of the Apache License,   ==
>>> ==  Version 2.0, in this case for the Apache Airavata distribution.    ==
>>> =========================================================================
>>> 
>>> This definitely should not be present.
>>> 
>>> There are lots of other entries in the NOTICE file; it's not clear to
>>> me whether they are all needed or not.
>>> AIUI, the NOTICE file should only contain *required* notices (whereas
>>> the LICENSE file should contain ALL applicable licenses)
>> 
>> Thank you in advance for the guidance,
>> Suresh
>> 
>> [1] - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/airavata/trunk/modules/distribution/src/main/resources/NOTICE
>> [2] - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/airavata/trunk/modules/distribution/src/main/resources/LICENSE
>> 
> 


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


Mime
View raw message