www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
Subject Re: Bundling and LICENSE
Date Thu, 22 Sep 2016 06:18:13 GMT

> Or was your advice to file an upstream issue specific to the Google NOTICE scenario and
doesn't expand to cover other third parties in general?

My understanding is that 3rd parties don’t have to follow ASF policy on NOTICE files but
we should be following MIT licensing conditions.

IMO adding a MIT header to that file makes it clear it’s MIT licensed and satisfies the
conditions of the MIT license at the same time. So the preference would be for it left without
a header?

> In another scenario, some MIT-licensed code was copied but the GH repo it came from does
not have a copy of the MIT license in their repo.

I’m not sure you comply with the terms of MIT licensed code if you don’t include the text
of the MIT license :-) (i.e. "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall
be included…" bit).

Yes it’s less than ideal they don’t have a license file to copy [1] but it not hard to
create one as we know the copyright owner and the text of the MIT license.

Also in this case they were contacted (back in March) [2] to see if another licensing issue
could be resolved and we got no response. That may happen again if we ask them to add a license

Assuming the course of action is to let the 3rd parties deal with these license issues and
add nothing to our LICENSE file. I think a further question also needs to be answered. While
this issue is not fixed is it OK to continue to make Apache releases that contain bundled
MIT licensed code but don’t abide by the terms of that MIT license?


1. https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI (towards bottom)
2. https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI/issues/213
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message