www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bundling an AL Font
Date Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:10:29 GMT
On 26 June 2014 04:31, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hard to be completely prescriptive... I don't recall an explicit discussion
> on this point.
>
> Anyway, the LICENSE update isn't strictly required (and is not required by
> the instructions). I find it to be convenient, when consuming artifacts.
> Others may have their opinions... When looking for license information, I
> wouldn't be looking in the README, but that's your project's decision...

The LICENSE file has to contain all the LICENSEs for the enclosing bundle.
i.e. it contains AL2.0 plus any other licenses, either embedded or as
a pointer to a separate license file in the bundle.
The main LICENSE file should detail which 3rd party products are
included under which licenses, e.g.

"Includes Foo V1.2 under the BSD license, see licenses/BSD.txt"

[Note that including the version of the 3rd party code is vital, as
the license may potentially change between versions.]

For 3rd party products under the AL2.0 license, the same approach
should be taken.

It is useful to mention all 3rd party inclusions in the LICENSE file,
including ones under AL2.0:
- Makes it much easier for the consumer to ensure that the code uses a
license with which they are comfortable.
- it helps the ASF project to ensure that all external inclusions are
accounted for.

Yes, it means updating the file every time an external version is
updated, but the license still has to be checked in case it has
changed.

> --kevan
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Kevan,
>>
>> Thanks for being patient with me.  That's what I meant by "undocumented"
>> and outside the "normal process".  The documents don't support adding
>> mention of included ALv2 artifacts to LICENSE, but there is precedence
>> elsewhere.  The documents seem to imply that the consumer should assume that
>> everything in a package is ALv2 unless otherwise noted, even for things that
>> are non-text like media/fonts.
>>
>> Do you have any thoughts on putting such mention in README vs LICENSE?
>> For me, putting information about the iicense and copyright of the fonts in
>> the README would escape criticism from any hard-liner who uses the how-to
>> document to say that we shouldn't have messed with the LICENSE.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:58 AM
>>
>> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Bundling an AL Font
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess I'm still confused:  I believe your current recommendation is to
>>> modify the LICENSE and not touch the NOTICE.
>>
>>
>> If I recall correctly, you (or maybe Justin) were concerned about making
>> it clear to users that the font was included. Adding the note to the LICENSE
>> is (IMO) a good way to do this. According to the process described in the
>> documents, you don't need to do this. But I've known multiple projects that
>> make note of the ALv2 artifacts that they include (when they are not
>> produced directly by the ASF or the project, itself).
>>
>> --kevan
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message