www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Flavio Junqueira <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Zookeeper Notice [Was: dependency on CDDL binary]
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:26:37 GMT
You're right about the CDDL license for servlet-api, I think the Lucene jira confused me when
I was doing that patch, and the servelet-api jar we are using is a bit old and doesn't contain
a license file. It sounds like we can remove that entry from the LICENSE file altogether.

Thanks again for the feedback, Henri!

-Flavio

> On 24 Feb 2016, at 09:32, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Yeah - I was looking at the wrong patch. :(
> 
> The last patch looks good  (bar the comment about why CDDL for servletapi). :)
> 
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org <mailto:fpj@apache.org>>
wrote:
> Hi Hen,
> 
> Our messages just crossed on the wire. We are indeed using the LICENSE file currently
for this, not the NOTICE file. We don't have that many dependencies to report (only 4), though,
so it looks like either way it wouldn't make the file unreadable. If there is no concern with
having it there, then I'm assuming we are good.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> -Flavio 
> 
> 
>> On 24 Feb 2016, at 09:15, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org <mailto:bayard@apache.org>>
wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> So my feedback about ZOOKEEPER-2235 would be that:
>> 
>> a) I like that the LICENSE file is simple (in this case, just the Apache 2.0 license);
ie) we're not mixing things that are included in the distribution with what's in the Apache
provided source. 
>> 
>> b) I don't like that the NOTICE file is used as a table of contents for the licenses
mixed in the distribution. 
>> 
>> c) I like however that there is a table of contents approach, but it (the NOTICE
file) is unreadable. It also refers to NOTICE files for projects whose licenses don't use
NOTICE files and it isn't clear what the license of the components are - half of them are
well described, and half are omitted (probably because they're Apache 2.0). I also like that
this table of contents provides links to license files within the distribution.
>> 
>> Hen
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org <mailto:fpj@apache.org>>
wrote:
>> Given this discussion, I'm actually interested in confirming that we've done the
right thing in Apache ZooKeeper. For one CDDL dependency we have in ZooKeeper, we have added
an entry to the NOTICE file:
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2235 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2235>
>> 
>> and we confirmed that other projects were doing it, like Lucene:
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4431 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4431>
>> 
>> Is this right?
>> 
>> -Flavio
>> 
>>> On 24 Feb 2016, at 05:42, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com <mailto:aharui@adobe.com>>
wrote:
>>> 
>>> Henri, is it ok for Jun to put this info in the README?  I thought you were telling
them it goes in LICENSE.
>>> 
>>> -Alex
>>> 
>>> From: Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org <mailto:bayard@apache.org>>
>>> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>"
<legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
>>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:09 PM
>>> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org
<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
>>> Subject: Re: dependency on CDDL binary
>>> 
>>> On dual licensing:
>>> 
>>> As long as that's 'OR' rather than 'AND'.
>>> 
>>> Which with Jersey is the case.
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016, Jun Rao <junrao@gmail.com <mailto:junrao@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>>>> Thanks everyone for responding. For now, we will add the CDDL license in
our README.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, just to confirm, Jersey is licensed under both CDDL and GPL. So, we
can still have a binary dependency on Jersey as long as we label CDDL in README?
>>>> 
>>>> Jun
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org <>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com
<>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com
<>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > if for CDDL nothing goes in NOTICE then this means that this
is not a
>>>>>> > required 3rd party notice:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > "You must inform recipients of any such Covered Software in
Executable form
>>>>>> > as to how they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code
form in a
>>>>>> > reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for
software
>>>>>> > exchange."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think it makes sense to treat the text which satisfies that passage
as a
>>>>>> "required notice".  (The literal text of that passage is not a "required
>>>>>> notice" -- it's the link to the source code which *satisfies* the
requirement
>>>>>> spelled out in that passage which should be treated as a "required
notice".)
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1. A link to where to get the original source (given it's unmodified)
in the NOTICE or LICENSE.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The link should (imo) be paired with the CDDL license text such that
one isn't removed without the other most likely being removed. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Some options that jump to mind are having both in the LICENSE, a THIRD_PARTY_LICENSE
or foo.jar.license/foo.jar.notice (with the notice there containing the required link).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hen
>>>>>  
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message