www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sebb (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-155) Please help us educate projects about LICENSE and NOTICE
Date Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:15:15 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-155?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13565307#comment-13565307

Sebb commented on LEGAL-155:


The N&L files must only apply to _included bits_.

It does not matter whether the included bits were part of a dependency chain or not.
The fact that Maven may use the dependency chain to determine which bits to bundle is completely

Not all Maven projects bundle all transitive dependencies, for example a Apache Commons component
generally only publishes its own code, even where the dependecies are other Commons components.

It's what actually ends up in the proposed release that is important.

For any 3rd party inclusion, we need to ascertain the LICENSE and from that derive any required
entry in the NOTICE file.
Some 3rd party items may come bundled with their own LICENSE file; if so we should use that.
If not, obviously we need to find out what the license is and use that.

In your case, before the release is published, you need to check that every included jar (e.g.
openjpa and serps) is correctly represented in the N&L files.
> 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

View raw message