www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Zookeeper Notice [Was: dependency on CDDL binary]
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:15:38 GMT
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.


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
>> 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
>>>> > 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

View raw message