Hi, > Could we please get some clarification on the following items - > > "- LICENSE is missing information from [1][2]”
Sorry my mistake I do see that both copyright statements are in LICENSE. You can ignore this. > "- NOTICE is incorrect. There should be no need for "This product contains > software PostgreSQL…” unless headers have been replace with permission or > there was a software grant from PostgreSQL. This has previously been > mentioned (in vote on 0.4.0 release). Also see issue with [1][2]." > > We are a bit confused here because AGE extensively uses PG code. If you include code form a 3rd party that generally gets mentioned in LICENSE not NOTICE. [1] > Many times we have to copy over PG code (static functions in particular) into > our files and we may modify that code to varying degrees. So, it feels like > we should cite that usage. Is it that NOTICE is not the proper location? No that is not what NOTICE is for. In general code from a 3rd party should include the original headers and not have ASF headers. I assume this code is under the PostgreSQL license already mentioned in LICENSE? > My understanding was that when the code was donated to Apache, we needed to > change all of the Bitnine headers to ASF headers. Sure but that needs to be listed in NOTICE. If this code was 3rd party code and not code developed at Bitnine, and was from the PostgreSQL project, then it probably should have the original PostgreSQL headers on it. Kind Regards, Justin 1. https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps 2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
