www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LICENSE vs. NOTICE (Was: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy)
Date Mon, 18 May 2015 15:42:24 GMT

2015-05-17 15:10 GMT-04:00 Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>:
> 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.

This bit doesn't sound like that: "Modifiers and re-distributors of
Apache software will now need to read the NOTICE files to determine
whether they have any derivative work reciprocity requirements for
specific contributions."

Anyway, my point here is that the NOTICE file has a very specific role
as the container of the attribution notices that any downstream
redistribution must include. Expanding that role to cover also "other
intellectual property information and copies of third party open
source licenses", is sure to cause confusion especially as the NOTICEs
in existing, older releases have no such information.

Copies of third party licenses already belong in the LICENSE file, and
so far the README has been a good place for other information like the
export control notices. Things like source audit reports or patent
information sound like a good match for the README, or we could
introduce a more structured place for that information. Overloading
the NOTICE with that seems like a bad idea.


Jukka Zitting

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

View raw message