www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: LICENSE vs. NOTICE (Was: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy)
Date Mon, 18 May 2015 00:41:45 GMT
Was that your proposed NOTICE file? I like most of it :)

Definitely much more there than NOTICE files I've seen at Apache. Currently
I think most just say:

Apache XYZ
Copyright YYY1-YYY2 The Apache Software Foundation

This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).

I've assumed the latter part is to avoid having to mention Apache ABC, DEF
and GHI products being included.

Listing the contributors seems intricate - Commons Lang releases (for
example) usually had ~100 contributors to a release, and that's a small
project.

If we took Babbage's work from GitHub, then is she a contributor?

---

Ralph's question is an important one for many projects once we get good
NOTICE documentation. Does 3rd party software that is depended on by a
build file and not included need to be documented in the NOTICE file. I
think a solution there might be to add "This project builds using Maven.
This means there are 3rd party packages referred to in the configuration
files that will be downloaded when you build. " to the NOTICE file. Same
for RubyGems, pypi, js build systems etc.

Hen

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> 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."
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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]
> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 12:05 PM
> To: 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
> 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