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 Sun, 08 Feb 2015 06:30:17 GMT
Thanks Marvin.

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.

Thanks
Amareshwari

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:17 AM, amareshwarisr . <amareshwari@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Thank you all for the quick responses.
> >
> > Here is what i understand, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > For source distribution- LICENSE and NOTICE will contain only Apache
> License
> > and nothing else.
>
> Assuming that the source release for Lens does not bundle any dependencies,
> that's almost correct.  You'll also need some content in NOTICE as
> described
> here:
>
>     http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>
> > For convenience binary distribution, top level LICENSE file can contain
> > Apache License, and NOTICE file must contain dependency dual licensing
> > information with a web link.
>
> The short blurb describing the dependency licensing (in this case dual
> licensing under the CDDL and GPL) should go in LICENSE.  The web link
> should
> go in NOTICE.
>
> NOTICE is not informational; it is specifically reserved for notices which
> are
> *legally required*, and section 4d of the Apache License 2.0 imposes extra
> demands on downstream consumers with regards to content in NOTICE.
>
>     https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#redistribution
>
> The web link pointing to the source for a bundled binary CDDL dependency
> is an
> example of such a legally required notice -- without it, a distribution
> does
> not comply with the CDDL, leaving the redistributor without a license for
> the
> redistributed content and in violation of copyright law.
>
> In contrast, omitting the dual-licensing blurb from the top-level
> LICENSE/NOTICE does not result in copyright violation.  That blurb is what
> some of us call "licensing documentation", and getting it wrong results in
> what is sometimes called a "licensing documentation bug".
>
> Like other bugs, licensing documentation bugs can have mild or severe
> impact
> on users and may or may not precipitate new releases or release candidates.
> We have far less flexibility when it comes to copyright violation.
>
> Please work hard to keep LICENSE and NOTICE both correct and minimal, to
> keep
> down the legal costs of using our work.  People like me who participate in
> licensing review (for either commercial or open source products) will
> appreciate it.
>
> > Ross, I'm assuming when a dependency is available under dual license and
> one
> > of them is compatible with apache license, then it is an acceptable
> > distribution.
>
> Correct.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message