www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: Simplfying requirements for LICENSE and NOTICE
Date Wed, 10 Feb 2016 17:24:12 GMT
It seems to me that "attribution" is with regard to the preservation of the notices, as in
the template form provided by OSI for the BSD 2-Clause License:

   Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
   All rights reserved.

   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
   modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

   1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright 
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

   2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in 
      the documentation and/or other materials provided with the 
      distribution.

This should not be that unfamiliar considering ALv2 section 4, where "attribution" is used
4 times without definition.  This boilerplate might also be considered in the nature of an
attribution:
 
    #  Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
    #  or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
    #  distributed with this work for additional information
    #  regarding copyright ownership.

Notice that it appeals to NOTICE, establishing a commitment about what one can find there.
 The subsequent sentence, "The ASF licenses this file ...," seems to declare what is sufficient
regarding attribution for the files having this notice though.

 - Dennis,
   not even playing a lawyer in an online game

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:marvin@rectangular.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 07:01
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Simplfying requirements for LICENSE and NOTICE
> 
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
> > In other words, we don't do enough to explain what LICENSE
> > and NOTICE are for
> 
> I still don't understand why "bubbling up" notifications into NOTICE is
> *legally* required for a source distro. The sole argument I've seen
> mentions
> the "attribution clause (if any)" of a BSD license.  But what clause is
> that?
> Nobody seems to call it that.
> 
> 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