www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Bundling and LICENSE
Date Thu, 22 Sep 2016 07:45:42 GMT
Agree that we can sometimes retrospectively add a MIT license header for
someone else - we would simply be complying with the MIT license; which
don't have a fixed filename of where the license should be.

Where this is not easy is where the copyright holders are unclear - if
upstream have no explicit copyright statement but just a generic license,
it can be tricky to derive which are the legal entities owning copyright,
particularly on GitHub projects with multiple contributors.

So also going upstream to clarify (with a pull request they then can tweak)
is good. most developers don't know details about licenses and copyright,
so it can be scary if we just ask "Fix your license" :)

On 22 Sep 2016 7:18 a.m., "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > 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 file.
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 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
>
>

Mime
View raw message