www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Flavio Junqueira <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: dependency on CDDL binary
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:15:34 GMT
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 <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 <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 <mailto:bayard@apache.org>>
> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org
<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:09 PM
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bayard@apache.org');>>
wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marvin@rectangular.com');>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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