www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "amareshwarisr ." <amareshw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CDDL + GPL license
Date Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:09:29 GMT
Thanks Marvin. The detailed feedback provided not just improved LICENSE and
NOTICE of the project, but got to learn a lot with respect to how to update

For source release :

For changes in license suggested, I have a question that how is it
conveyed that the source files that are missing license headers are

I see the following in http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html,

Why is a licensing header necessary?

License headers allow someone examining the file to know the terms for the
work, even when it is distributed without the rest of the distribution.
Without a licensing notice, it must be assumed that the author has reserved
all rights, including the right to copy, modify, and redistribute.
So, how do we convey that the files with missing headers are actually with
Apache license. I could not get an answer from the page

Will do following changes in source release :

   - Remove entries in LICENSE file which are ALV2
   - Remove copyright notice from NOTICE file for MIT licenses.

For Binary distribution :

Will do following changes along with both the above:

   - Fix typo for For org.hsqldb,

For MIT and BSD notice, Full text of license and copyright is already part
of top level LICENSE and a web link is provided in NOTICE file.

And Yes, I confirm that licensing documentation actually matches the
bundled content, etc


On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>

> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:30 PM, amareshwarisr . <amareshwari@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I have updated LICENSE and NOTICE required for source and convenient
> binary
> > distribution for Apache Lens. Raised review request at
> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/30770/ and
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30772
> >
> > If you can provide your feedback on them that would be great.
> I'll go over LICENSE and NOTICE in both official source release and
> convenience binary in turn.
> ---
> First, LICENSE in the official source release:
> It is unusual and IMO not desirable to list dozens of individual PNG,
> powerpoint, data, README, and dotfiles in LICENSE.  Especially when they
> are
> under the ALv2.  I suggest stripping out this list.
> The MIT licenses look acceptable.  Some of us might have preferred to see
> pointers rather multiple copies of the MIT license, but your approach
> complies
> with policy.
> ---
> Second, NOTICE in the official source release:
> The required text at the top (as specified in src-headers.html) seems
> right.
> However, it is not appropriate to add copyright notices for MIT-licensed
> dependencies to NOTICE under ordinary circumstances.
> The NOTICE file is not for conveying information to downstream consumers
> -- it
> is a way to *compel* downstream consumers to *relay* certain required
> notices.
> For a source distribution, the MIT license is satisfied by leaving any
> license
> headers intact in any bundled source files.  There is no need to add any
> mention of them to NOTICE, and adding such bloat to NOTICE makes it more
> complicated and expensive to determine how to comply with the licensing of
> our
> products.
> Here's past Board member Roy Fielding on the subject:
>     http://s.apache.org/0e
>     Hey, I'm all for people having opinions on development and credits and
>     documentation.  NOTICE and LICENSE are none of those.  They are not
> open
>     to anyone's opinions other than the copyright owners that require such
>     notices, and they must not be added where they are not required.  Each
>     additional notice places a burden on the ASF and all downstream
>     redistributors.
>     Please, folks, I am not even a Sling committer.  I am speaking as the
>     author of the Apache License.  Don't screw with what I have changed.
>     I have way more experience in these matters than everyone else at the
>     ASF combined.  If you put stuff in NOTICE that is not legally required
>     to be there, I will remove it as an officer of the ASF.  If you add it
>     back in, I will have to duplicate the effort of removing it again.
>     That will not make me a happy camper.
> Sometimes, a copyright holder will insist on putting their copyright notice
> into the NOTICE file.  Once that happens, we are compelled -- by law --
> not to
> remove or modify their copyright notice without their permission.  But we
> should not be making decisions to propagate copyright notices into NOTICE
> unilaterally.
> ---
> Next, LICENSE for the convenience binary (and associated LICENSE-* files):
> As with LICENSE in the source release, I suggest stripping out the list of
> miscellaneous files under ALv2.
> This comma seems like a typo:
>     For org.hsqldb,
> The approach taken in the rest of it seems OK.  Kudos for not embedding the
> longer licenses, but instead including additional files like `LICENSE-EPL`.
> ---
> Finally, NOTICE for the convenience binary:
> The required info from src-headers.html seems right.
> The links for "category B" dependencies seem appropriate.
> Mentions for MIT or 2/3-clause BSD deps in the NOTICE file for *binary*
> distributions is an unsettled subject at the ASF as far as I know -- and
> since
> we don't release binaries, I don't know how soon there will be guidance, if
> ever.  But note that both licenses contain relevant provisions (BSD is
> clear
> about binary redistribition, MIT is ambiguous):
>     BSD:
>         2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> copyright
>            notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
> the
>            documentation and/or other materials provided with the
>            distribution.
>     MIT:
>         The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>         included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> Note the both licenses require propagation of the *entire* license text,
> so a
> link in NOTICE does not suffice.  I imagine that the appropriate place for
> achieving compliance is A) not NOTICE and B) dependent on the binary format
> and where a consumer would be expected to look for such licensing
> information.
> For a jar file, I'd speculate that inclusion in META-INF/LICENSE is good
> enough?
> ---
> Standard IANAL disclaimers apply.  Licensing for the convenience binary is
> the
> primary responsibility of the producer, not the ASF.  I only performed a
> superficial review -- going over such complicated licensing is exhausting
> and
> I didn't have time to go line by line, confirm that licensing documentation
> actually matches the bundled content, etc.
> HTH,
> Marvin Humphrey
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message