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: Bundling an AL Font
Date Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:48:22 GMT
OK, so binaries are an undocumented special case and we don't proceed via the "normal process"?

I'm ok with doing something a particular way because some other project is doing it that way,
but I'd feel better if it was documented somewhere.  Henri's was slightly different.

Still curious, why does the original quote only apply to checking something into SVN?  These
TTF files are checked into Git and were checked into SVN before we moved to Git.   Should
we have changed the NOTICE in that case?  And if so, why then would that change to NOTICE
not get applied to the source package?

Thanks,
-Alex

From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com<mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Date: Monday, June 23, 2014 10:14 PM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Bundling an AL Font


On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com<mailto:justin@classsoftware.com>>
wrote:
> Not necessarily. An ASF project NOTICE can include additionall attributions.

For simplicity sake I was assuming that no NOTICE file exist the 3rd party code.

In that case you don't need to do anything.

If there was a NOTICE file, you must include all non-ASF attributions that apply to your usage
(there's no need to copy the ASF attributions).

Without a NOTICE file, in the distributed binary or original source(I try to check if .jar
files don't include a NOTICE. Some projects aren't good about building jars with LICENSE/NOTICE
files), you don't need to do anything. I downloaded the Open-Sans source, and don't see a
NOTICE file there. You should verify this...


> Once you have established the LICENSE (and NOTICE if any) that apply
> to the 3rd party code, the normal process applies.

So where does the copyright attribution go?

In the absence of a NOTICE file? Nowhere, IMO. If the producers of Open-Sans wanted a copyright
attribution, they would have (should have) created a NOTICE file. You can always verify with
the producers to see if they made a mistake.


To put in context the current situation with the fonts is that we have binary files (the font
files) in a release that there no clear indication what the license is or where they come
from). You can assume that they are Apache licensed (as no other license is indicated) but
anyone reviewing the release may want to know more information, like where they come from
and the original copyright owner may want attribution and/or it may be legally required.

To handle this, I would put something like the following in the LICENSE file:

The <path-to-open-sans-font-file-in-your-source-distribution> is licensed under Apache
License, Version 2.0.

You can find similar examples from other LICENSE files. For example -- http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE

--kevan


Mime
View raw message