www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rob Weir (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-155) Please help us educate projects about LICENSE and NOTICE
Date Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:08:18 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-155?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13558781#comment-13558781
] 

Rob Weir commented on LEGAL-155:
--------------------------------

Imagine a table with three columns.  In column one we list all of the licenses that are permitted
in Apache releases, e.g., the cat-a and cat-b licenses (cat-b obviously permitted only in
restricted cases, but that is immaterial with regards to LICENSE and NOTICE documentation).

In the second column we put boilerplate contents for what should go in the LICENSE file if
3rd party code under that license is used.  In the 3rd column we put boilerplate NOTICE content
that must accompany use of 3rd part code under that license.

Would that help?  That eliminates the need for each podling to figure out what a "required
notice" is.  They just follow the table.   We get consistency that way.  In fact you could
even imagine an enhancement in RAT that would check LICENSE and NOTICE for inconsistencies.
                
> Please help us educate projects about LICENSE and NOTICE
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-155
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-155
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Benson Margulies
>
> Dear Legal,
> The incubator continues to struggle to educate projects in the proper construction and
maintenance of LICENSE and NOTICE files. INCUBATOR-125 is an attempt to write some documentation.
This document suffers from its authors' inability to even find a single point of reference
on the ASF website for theory of these files. 
> Since podlings are unusual only in their need to set up initial versions, it seems to
me that most of this documentation should be produced and maintained at the foundation level,
and the incubator should be pointing to it, instead of maintain detailed alternatives with
risk of divergence.
> If there is existing documentation, please comment and point me to it. If there is not,
can we collaborate to write it?
> In this area, I have a particular curiosity and concern about convenience binaries.
> A typical Apache project has very limited needs for complexity in these files for its
*releases*. Only sources with external provenance (e.g., results of an SGA) or bundled dependencies
trigger it. Far more dependencies get bundled in convenience binaries. But convenience binaries
are, merely, conveniences, not legally, releases from the foundation. I've never seen any
discussion of this; does the foundation's liability umbrella even extend over them? I doubt
it, for all the usual reasons given in emphasizing that the real release is the source release.
So I wonder about what policies or guidelines should exist for their legal boilerplate.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

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


Mime
View raw message