www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject RE: LICENSE file question
Date Wed, 02 Apr 2014 07:09:48 GMT
Apologies for the formatting.  My responses prefixed by "Alex:"
________________________________________
From: Kevan Miller [kevan.miller@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 10:04 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: LICENSE file question

Hi Alex

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com<mailto:aharui@adobe.com>>
wrote:
I'm a bit confused by some of what I'm learning from discussion threads and policy documents.

Scenario:

The proposed FlexUnit source release includes source code that originates from Adobe under
BSD.  These source files have not yet been donated to Apache.

A recent thread says that for a source release, the BSD license does not go in LICENSE and
the BSD license requirements are satisfied by the BSD license and copyright in the headers
of these third-party files.

Pointer to the discussion? Based on your description, I would disagree.

Alex: https://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg43596.html


Meanwhile, the Licensing How-To [1] also says: "In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's
license" but the paragraph seems to be referring to dependencies that are essentially entire
libraries, consumed untouched.  In this case, FlexUnit (version 4.x) is a next-generation,
mostly re-written version that includes a subset of the Adobe BSD files.  In the current release
candidate, the fact that there are Adobe BSD files in the distribution is not mentioned in
README, LICENSE or NOTICE.  You won't find out until you open one of the Adobe BSD files.

"Dependencies" may be more the norm, these days, but the instructions still hold.

Personally, I prefer to see the license in the LICENSE file (and not a pointer). However,
if the licensing information is made clear to our users and we're meeting the terms/requirements
of the ALv2 license and any other license that is part of your release, then all is good.

Alex: Still confused by what it means to "make it clear".  Is having the correct header sufficient
or does there have to be a license or a pointer in a LICENSE file?

A related question is: is a "dependency" the same as a third-party work?  IOW, are the Adobe
BSD files in the source kit that are also checked into the repo still considered a dependency?

No. IMO, "dependency" refers to software that is not directly part of your project.

Alex:  What does "directly part" mean?   If Company D donates source files that include Company
A's BSD source files, is Company A's source code no longer a dependency?  And would Company
A's source files be a dependency if the Company A source files were not donated but instead
downloaded from somewhere?  If that's true, it would seem to encourage "donating" of lots
of third-party category A files.

Thanks,
-Alex

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


Mime
View raw message