Sorry if my question was too vague. Airavata depends on quite a few apache projects including Jackrabbit, Xerces Java, XmlBeans, Axis2, Derby, Woden, xml-commons, and Xalan. Looking at the third party notice requirement [1], I went through non-apache dependencies and included their notice files if explicitly mentioned. Am i assuming correctly that we should include all NOTICEs of apache project dependencies? Can you please point me to a reference which will provide guidance on what should be included and what should be eliminated from [2].
Thanks, Suresh [1] - http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices [2] - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/airavata/trunk/modules/distribution/src/main/resources/NOTICE On May 13, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Suresh Marru wrote: > Hi, > > During a recent release, we had the following comments on Airavata binary > notice file [1] and the corresponding license file [2]. Based on Ate's > comments we removed the extra NOTICEs for SLF4J, DOM4J, ICU4J and few others. > But can some one please look at the NOTICE file [1] and comments below and > suggest examples on what still is unnecessary and removed? > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > >> * binary NOTICE file >> - I think there are some unneeded/unwanted entries still. Some notices and >> copyright statements should not legally be needed nor are they requested. >> For instance for BSD/MIT like licenses which already are provided for >> verbatim in the LICENSE file itself, there is no need to (and thus should >> not) be covered *also* in the NOTICE file. Having those in the LICENSE file >> should be enough. And certainly so if the 3rd party artifact doesn't have or >> require an explicit NOTICE file itself. I think this applies to the NOTICE >> entries for SLF4J, DOM4J, ICU4J, Jettison, etc. Please do check if each of >> these notices really are necessary/required. >> >> - A different thing is the NOTICE provided for commons-logging (1.1.1). >> The commons-logging jar come with a NOTICE file of its own (being an ASF >> release it should). But IMO the additional content copied verbatim from that >> NOTICE file can be ignored and thus removed. It concerns the following >> section: >> >> This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown >> organization' >> - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3 >> - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12 >> - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1 >> >> Only log4j is actually bundled with airavata and as an ASF artifact doesn't >> need extra NOTICE coverage. And as the other referenced artifacts aren't >> included or used there is no need to 'honor' this part from the >> common-logging NOTICE file. >> The ASL 2.0 license sections 4.d) says: "[...], excluding those notices that >> do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works." > > On May 1, 2012, at 11:18 AM, sebb wrote: > >> The NOTICE file in the binary archive contains the following: >> >> ========================================================================= >> == NOTICE file corresponding to section 4(d) of the Apache License, == >> == Version 2.0, in this case for the Apache Airavata distribution. == >> ========================================================================= >> >> This definitely should not be present. >> >> There are lots of other entries in the NOTICE file; it's not clear to >> me whether they are all needed or not. >> AIUI, the NOTICE file should only contain *required* notices (whereas >> the LICENSE file should contain ALL applicable licenses) > > Thank you in advance for the guidance, > Suresh > > [1] - > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/airavata/trunk/modules/distribution/src/main/resources/NOTICE > [2] - > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/airavata/trunk/modules/distribution/src/main/resources/LICENSE >
