www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: dependency on CDDL binary
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:55:28 GMT
Hi, Justin,

Thanks for the explanation. For [1], the text reads "You must include a
copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code form of the Covered
Software You distribute or otherwise make available.". So it seems that you
only need to include the CDDL license if you include the source code of
Jersey. In our case, Jersey is a binary dependency. So, it seems that we
just need to cover [2] by describing how to obtain the source code of
Jersey in NOTICE?

1. See 3.1 of https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0 ("You must include a
copy of this License…”)
2. Also in 3.1 of  https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0 (" You must
inform recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to how
they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code..”)

Thanks,

Jun

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Justin Mclean <justinmclean@me.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Confusion here I think is there are several legally complient ways of
> handling this and there a couple of license condition we need to comply
> with.
>
> It would however be nice if we could have up with a consistent way of
> doing this.
>
> It is a requirement of the CDDL license that the license text be included.
> [1] Having a pointer in LICENSE follows what we do with other licenses.
>
> The CDDL license imposes a further condition in that you must link to the
> original source code. [2] Previous advice on this list stated that this
> should be added to NOTICE. This current thread seems to say it OK to add it
> to LICENSE / NOTICE or perhaps even README. If there’s a possibly of the
> ASF software being use in other projects I think it makes the most sense to
> be put in NOTCE so that down stream projects are clearly notified of this
> extra condition.
>
> Other licenses i.e. Mozilla Public License (MPL) and the Eclipse Public
> License (ECP) also contain these two conditions and probably should be
> handled similarly.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. See 3.1 of https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0 ("You must include
> a copy of this License…”)
> 2. Also in 3.1 of  https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0 (" You must
> inform recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to how
> they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code..”)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message