www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Closed] (LEGAL-27) LICENSE/NOTICE content vs package content
Date Sat, 20 Feb 2016 22:09:18 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-27?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Henri Yandell closed LEGAL-27.
------------------------------
    Resolution: Won't Fix

Primarily this seems to have been answered in the following three sections written in 2013:

* http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundled-vs-non-bundled
* http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#deps-of-deps
* http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary

The position taken in that document is very black and white; everything included in a distribution
must be covered, nothing not included in a distribution may be covered. 

Personally I feel it's okay to have a LICENSE/NOTICE that refers to more than one distribution;
but will leave that for a future discussion.

> LICENSE/NOTICE content vs package content
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-27
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-27
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> Most apache releases included a LICENSE/NOTICE tuple (I will refer to them as LICENSE/NOTICE
tuple to make it easier, even if they deserve different treatment sometimes) including references
to every 3rd party work in that svn tree. This LICENSE/NOTICE tuple was then added to every
package released from that tree even if some of the packages created didn't really include
all of the work referenced there.
> To my understand this was the standard accepted practice until a broader maven adoption.
Using maven most projects started releasing jar-packages (and not only the bin/src packages)
so the question about the LICENSE/NOTICE oversized content came out.
> If people agree that is good to have a NOTICE/LICENSE specific to each release I think
it should be written in a policy but I would hope this is not enforced because this would
probably be a cause for limiting the number of packages released (creating a new assembly
for the same work is much less work than mantaining a special NOTICE/LICENSE for it).
> Here is the "practice" as described by David Jencks to me:
> ----
> released artifacts should include LICENSE and NOTICE files applying exactly to their
content.   If this goal is not achieved, its better to have unnecessary stuff in the LICENSE/NOTICE
files than missing stuff.
> ----
> The introduction of the 1.4 version for org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle changed
the LICENSE/NOTICE added to jars to not include dependencies by default, so people upgrading
from 1.3 will ask this again and again.
> A clear policy IMHO is also a good way to let some smart people create/improve maven
plugins to better manage what the policy says. No written policy means that we all do what
the plugin developer prefererred ;-) (kudos to plugin developers)



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message