www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: LICENSE vs. NOTICE (Was: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy)
Date Mon, 18 May 2015 00:26:53 GMT
Hen, the details in the NOTICE file sort of depend on which Apache FOO software we're talking
about. 

 

First, we're never talking about "Apache 2.0 licensed software from the ASF" unless we mean
something like this: 

 

"Apache FOO is an aggregate work which is Copyright (C) 2015 The Apache Software Foundation.
It is comprised of various components by contributors Babbage, Einstein, and Frankenstein.
Babbage licensed her works under the BSD license and we took them from GitHub. Einstein signed
an Apache CLA and so his contributions are under Apache License 2.0. Frankenstein created
a GPLv2 plug-in which is optional for Apache FOO. Copies of those three licenses are in LICENSE.TXT.
The SPDX information is in SPDX.XML. All of the source code is at www.apache.org <http://www.apache.org>
."

 

There is no need to make it into a PhD dissertation. Clear exposition is best, with as few
$10 words as possible.

 

/Larry

 

From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 3:50 PM
To: ASF Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: LICENSE vs. NOTICE (Was: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy)

 

We need better guidance for NOTICE files I feel.

Let's imagine a project, project is Apache 2.0 licensed software from the ASF and includes
BSD code copyright to Alice Babbage. 

Would you expect the following:

LICENSE file. Contains Apache 2.0 license text and then the BSD license text.

NOTICE file. Contains standard ASF NOTICE text, and then a line saying "Includes BSD code
copyright Alice Babbage"?

Typically I'd not expect the NOTICE file to reference the BSD license being in the LICENSE
file.

 

Thanks,

Hen

 

 

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:

Hen, I know what Jukka was suggesting. I have no problem with using a LICENSE file to contain
the texts of FOSS licenses. They are boring and repetitive and mostly ignored anyway. :-)

 

But the NOTICE file contains the summary of "other intellectual property information" and
will point to the LICENSE file if appropriate for actual "copies of third party open source
licenses." For all I know, the NOTICE file may even point to a separate SPDX file, but again
that's up to those who created and implement that standard. 

 

I didn't intend the proposed Apache Third Party License Policy to affect that useful practice
of creating separate files in any meaningful way.

 

/Larry

 

 

From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 1:00 PM
To: ASF Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: LICENSE vs. NOTICE (Was: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy)

 

I think Jukka was suggesting a correction of:

"read the NOTICE file for other intellectual property information and for copies of third
party open source licenses."

 

to be:

"read the NOTICE file for other intellectual property information and _the LICENSE file_ for
copies of third party open source licenses."

 

Hen

 

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:

Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Our license states "The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational
> purposes only and do not modify the License." (ALv2, 4d),

This remains a true statement under the proposed Third Party License Policy.

/Larry



-----Original Message-----
From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitting@gmail.com <mailto:jukka.zitting@gmail.com>
]
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 12:05 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org> 
Subject: LICENSE vs. NOTICE (Was: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy)

Hi,

A confusion about the purpose NOTICE files keeps coming up in the other thread, so I wanted
to clarify this.

2015-05-17 12:27 GMT-04:00 Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>:
> "[...] If you modify or create a derivative work of this FOO software
> and distribute it, read the NOTICE file for other intellectual
> property information and for copies of third party open source licenses. [...]"

Our license states "The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
do not modify the License." (ALv2, 4d), so pointing people to the NOTICE file for licensing
information is incorrect. See http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
for more details on what goes into the NOTICE file.

Instead people should refer to the LICENSE file as the primary source of licensing information.
Among the other licensing details that file has explicit instructions on how NOTICE file should
be handled.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>

For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>

For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>


 

 


Mime
View raw message