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: dependency on CDDL binary
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:07:43 GMT
I wouldn't put the CDDL license text in a README. It should, imo, be in:

a) LICENSE
b) jersey.license.txt
c) THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES

Noting that this is stylistic, there's no one required way provided the
required compliance content is sufficiently displayed to the licensee.

To Marvin's point in another thread on this list, we need to do better at
having a common style.

Hen

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Alex Harui <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>
> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:09 PM
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <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> 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