www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: dependency on CDDL binary
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2016 05:42:37 GMT
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