www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bundling an AL Font
Date Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:34:03 GMT
So, your justification for adding the copyright is that you've found some
counter examples? Do you have any other reasons?

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > There's no requirement to add the attribution. Feel free to ask the Open
> Sans community.
>
> Even though this practise seems quite common in Apache projects? Which is
> why I bought this up as the advice seems counter the what is in common
> practice.
>
>  For example taking the first few 1/2 dozen projects off our github
> mirrors:
>
> Accumullo LICENSE has copyright for BSD (line 226).
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo/blob/master/LICENSE


Conforms with the terms of the BSD license and the instructions in --
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html

The BSD license *contains* the copyright. Thus by including the license,
the copyright is included. This would not be the case for ALv2 licensed
dependencies. Where the copyright, if present, would be in the NOTICE. If
there is no NOTICE, then we don't care.


> Clouldstack LICENCE has copyright for MIT (lines 186 + 280 + 311 + 405 +
> 431 + 457 + 483 + 510 + 545 + more), BSD (lines 348) and Apache (lines 221
> + 267 + 273 + 342 + 653 + 659):
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/LICENSE


MIT and BSD conform with their license and instructions. The ALv2 handling
does not (the copyright handling is not consistent with the
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html and is not *required* by the
license). You didn't reference the NOTICE which is where the copyrights
belong (assuming the bundled components have a NOTICE). If the bundled
components don't have a NOTICE, then nothing is required...


> Hive - assorted licenses with copyright (lines 265, 296, 327, 360, 386,
> 421, 437, 464)
> https://github.com/apache/hive/blob/trunk/LICENSE
>
> Archiva - likewise including Apache (line 373)
> https://github.com/apache/archiva/blob/master/LICENSE


Bored. Didn't look.


>
> Subversion - likewise including Apache (line 232)
> https://github.com/apache/subversion/blob/trunk/LICENSE


Again, this is handling the license. Seems appropriate to me (and not
inconsistent with the direction you've been given and
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html).


> That's 5 out of  the 7 projects I looked at, of the others:
> - Cassandra places licenses in a libs directory which seems a little
> unusual and too numerous to check every one.
> - bllodhound bundles no software
>
> And I know I've seen other Apache projects that do exactly the same.
>
> Are you saying all these projects above have incorrect LICENSE files?
>

No. At least one contains copyright information that
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html, this discussion, and the
license itself do not require. Is that "incorrect"? So there are degrees of
incorrectness:

Does not conform to the license(s) -- bad
Conforms, but contains information that is not required -- undesirable

Will all ASF projects that have been built (over a long period of time)
strictly conform to the latest/current licensing practices? No.

--kevan

Mime
View raw message