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: Zookeeper Notice [Was: dependency on CDDL binary]
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:32:26 GMT
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> 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> 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> 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
>>
>> and we confirmed that other projects were doing it, like Lucene:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4431
>>
>> Is this right?
>>
>> -Flavio
>>
>> On 24 Feb 2016, at 05:42, 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