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 Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:58:18 GMT
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