www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: LICENSE vs. NOTICE (Was: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy)
Date Mon, 18 May 2015 16:05:01 GMT
Somehow that doesn’t seem right.  We have said that we can have optional dependencies on
libraries under the LGPL.  Why wouldn’t we want to make it known in the NOTICE file that
optional component Foo requires a work licensed under the LGPL to function?

Ralph

> On May 17, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
>> In the Java world I am more concerned with the case where our ASF code has a
>> dependency on a jar containing code licensed under BSD (or XYZ).  I wouldn’t
>> expect to see the BSD license in our LICENSE file since none of the code
>> downloaded from the ASF is under that license. I would, however, expect the
>> NOTICE file to say that the resulting application will be dependent on code
>> licensed under the BSD license and include a link to that license.
> 
> LICENSE and NOTICE are only for bundled bits.  If the dependency is not
> bundled, it shouldn't be mentioned in either LICENSE or NOTICE.
> 
> Marvin Humphrey
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message