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 Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:28:38 GMT
Hi Kevan,

I guess I'm still confused:  I believe your current recommendation is to modify the LICENSE
and not touch the NOTICE.  Yet the in the two documents you cite below, the how-to says:

Bundling an Apache-2.0-licensed Dependency

Assuming once again that that the bundled dependency itself contains no bundled subcomponents
under other licenses and thus the ALv2 applies uniformly to all files, there is no need to
modify LICENSE.

And that leaves me confused about how you can claim these documents suggest modifying the
license.  Is there some other section of the how to that later suggests modifying LICENSE
as you recommend?

Also you are claiming that the second document (src-headers) is part of the normal process
but telling me to either ignore one of is sections or claiming that it doesn't apply.

And this is after your initial reply that seemed to indicate that we didn't need to touch
either LICENSE or NOTICE (given that we can't find a NOTICE in the font) and Henri also answered
that we didn't have to change LICENSE or NOTICE.

I just want to make sure you are sure of your current recommendation and that I'm not going
to get different answers from others.  Henri, do you now concur with Kevan?

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: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:28 AM
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 11:48 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com<mailto:aharui@adobe.com>>
wrote:
OK, so binaries are an undocumented special case and we don't proceed via the "normal process"?

No. I believe http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html and http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
describe the "normal process". And I believe that my instructions are in-line with their contents.


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?

I think that quote is potentially dated and is not targeted towards inclusion of ALV2 licensed
source/artifacts.

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?

I'm not sure I'm following that... Git or SVN makes no difference. My reference to SVN is
as the canonical source code control repository for the ASF. Anyway, IMO, you don't need to
do anything to your NOTICE file.

--kevan


Mime
View raw message