Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8212811346 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 03:32:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 2012 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jun 2014 03:32:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 1854 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jun 2014 03:32:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 1843 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jun 2014 03:32:20 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 03:32:20 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com designates 209.85.128.182 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.128.182] (HELO mail-ve0-f182.google.com) (209.85.128.182) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 03:32:15 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f182.google.com with SMTP id oy12so3051296veb.13 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:31:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=phcmDgJvPibLyx4rVtACQtCf0ZQLBuTh8vAvkxKf0nY=; b=zXu/3LiiHL3k8mlrUAjg4nk4vvDGedqlMdQOdPtQ1ZOEzxlXBSP0grmSlBbqZE74xp ZHU81CplVqUwEq7NMLkJw2j8HO3URoOr04GytVm0/dKTKum3cdtLFQQoyeGMyqiIkOrU MyL2JBVvlLKaY9/qtK5ctodZrL5G60uNfjQuWTpM2nElLrCvSjTj1W72TMVvrVEmIWdN WIP6CB2YgAyqzhwyB9myfw59AM6k24xuh/oa4cZxOWAxYL4HipdeiCGL1WJyp2ICoPlu eTuZ4ypg7Z6sW7STPSKHsQ07vDTH9M830xvNaxVC2y7B+pf3tc9Sh0mWr2aAYMIQ6Nxb cXmA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.185.202 with SMTP id cp10mr10650216vcb.15.1403753514549; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.248.38 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:31:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <49D423B3-1FCE-49B5-80FE-217746D3B739@classsoftware.com> <39C7D2B9-7989-43CF-8785-1DCF15FE222E@classsoftware.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:31:54 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Bundling an AL Font From: Kevan Miller To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1bd8c9646b304fcb4d593 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a11c1bd8c9646b304fcb4d593 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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... --kevan On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Alex Harui 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 > Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" > Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:58 AM > > To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" > Subject: Re: Bundling an AL Font > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Alex Harui 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 > --001a11c1bd8c9646b304fcb4d593 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hard to be completely prescriptive... I don't recall a= n explicit discussion on this point.

Anyway, the LICENSE= update isn't strictly required (and is not required by the instruction= s). I find it to be convenient, when consuming artifacts. Others may have t= heir opinions... When looking for license information, I wouldn't be lo= oking in the README, but that's your project's decision...

--kevan


<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Alex Harui <ahar= ui@adobe.com> wrote:
Hi Kevan,

Thanks for being patient with me. =A0That's what I meant by "= undocumented" and outside the "normal process". =A0The docum= ents don't support adding mention of included ALv2 artifacts to LICENSE= , but there is precedence elsewhere. =A0The documents seem to imply that the consumer should assume that everything in a package is ALv2 unles= s 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?= =A0For me, putting information about the iicense and copyright of the font= s 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&= gt;
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org&quo= t; <legal-= discuss@apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 25, 201= 4 8:58 AM

To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <= ;legal-discus= s@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Bundling an AL Font


--001a11c1bd8c9646b304fcb4d593--