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: Writing a correct NOTICE file for Apache OpenMeetings
Date Fri, 18 May 2012 03:25:46 GMT

On May 17, 2012, at 11:48 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> we are trying to build our first release as Apache OpenMeetings in ASFs Incubator.
> We need to write a proper NOTICE file.
> From the guide 
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
> 
> I did understood that only Non-Apache licensed files need to be documentated in the NOTICE
file.

Hi Seba,
I'm not sure how literal you intend the above statement to be. You may need to document Apache
licensed files in your NOTICE file. 

You do not need to reproduce the ASF specific portions of their NOTICE file. Using http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
as an example, your NOTICE file should not include:

   Apache HTTP Server
   Copyright 1999-2006 The Apache Software Foundation

   This product includes software developed at
   The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).

But should include the remainder of their NOTICE.

For AL v2 licensed files not released by the ASF, you should reproduce their NOTICE (if they
have one), as it applies to your redistribution.

For files not under an apache license, you may need to put information in your NOTICE file,
if their license requires it. If not required by their license, you should not put anything
in the NOTICE.


> However I see from other Apache Releases that also Apache Licensed 3th party library
needs to have a proper License file shipped with every release.
> Compared here:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/axis/axis2/java/core/tags/v1.6.2/legal/
> a lot of files, all the same content: Apache License 2.0
> 
> Do we really need to ship a separated file for every library even if it is Apache License
2.0 and no additional "Notice" is required ?

No. Most projects (as the incubator documentation you refer to directs) put their licenses
into a single LICENSE file. Each license need only appear once in this LICENSE file. The LICENSE
file should indicate which file(s) each of the licenses apply to…

Some projects have packaged the licenses into a legal/ or licenses/ directory. In this case,
the LICENSE file should refer to this directory and, in some manner, you must document which
files each license applies to. It looks like axis2 did this/attempted to do this by created
multiple license files (many of which contain the same license) and named the license files
in a way which should indicate what file they're associated with. 

Personally, I prefer a single LICENSE file, but seems like either format can be correct (I'm
not sure how successful Axis2 was).

On a separate note, I took a look at your svn. You have a boatload of "binary" files in your
svn (275 jar files and I don't recognize some of the suffixes on other files). At best this
practice is frowned upon, and at worst is against ASF policy (I'm not sure if this is official
policy or just strongly held opinion). Regardless, you should be planning on removing them.

I also see some GPL (mysql, red5) and LGPL (nusoap) files. I assume these have been noted
and will be removed during the course of your incubation?

--kevan






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


Mime
View raw message