www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: L & N Advice Clarification
Date Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:25:08 GMT
I would apply the same rule-of-thumb. Does the non-ASF source package
contain a NOTICE file? If so, then you should be following the requirements
of the AL v2 license and including the relevant portions of their NOTICE
file. If the source package does not contain a NOTICE, then you don't need
to do anything.

You could add something to the NOTICE, but there's no requirement (legal or
ASF policy) that you do so. The general guidance for NOTICE file content
is/has been -- don't do what you aren't required to do.

If you've had communications with the project that created the source
package and they would like attribution, then I would follow their wishes
(and instruct them how creating a NOTICE file would insure that their
wishes are followed in the future).

kevan

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

> Sebb, Kevan,
>
> About a year ago Flex was asking about bundling an Apache-licensed Font
> into a binary package and we received the following advice:
>
> "It is useful to mention all 3rd party inclusions in the LICENSE file,
> including ones under AL2.0:ā€ [1]
>
> And
>
> "If they don't have a NOTICE file, then, IMO, that means they aren't asking
> for attribution and you don't need to do anything.ā€ [2]
>
> Now Flex is bundling non-ASF but Apache-licenses source into the source
> package but Iā€™m being told that the advice given only applied to binaries
> bundled in a binary package.  Can you confirm?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> [1] http://s.apache.org/qDa
> [2] http://s.apache.org/vP7
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message