* Convenience, completeness, and politeness — is what I really meant :)
On 14 October 2013 12:21, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > (I have actually convinced myself while sourcing that that we do not even > need to attribute Christopher or Benoit in NOTICE. The only time we should > be moving stuff to NOTICE is when we find copyright statements in the > original works. Neither Christopher's blog post or Benoit's protocol draft > have such notices. And so any attribution we make is for convenience only.) > > > On 14 October 2013 12:18, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Dirkjan, >> >> I am not going to discuss this any longer. This is your call. :) >> >> Check out this: >> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html >> >> Specifically, the sections: >> >> Treatment of Third-Party Works >> NOTICE file >> >> Also, this: >> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html >> >> Specifically these bits: >> >> > Many of these licenses have specific attribution terms that need to be >> adhered to, for example CC-A, often by adding them to the NOTICE file. >> >> (i.e. We only have to put stuff in NOTICE when compelled to do so by the >> license.) >> >> This is further expanded on, in this comment: >> >> > When a release contains third party works, the licenses covering those >> works may ask that consumers are informed in certain specific fashions. >> These third party notices vary from license to license. Apache releases >> should contain a copy of each license, usually contained in the LICENSE >> document. For many licenses this is a sufficient notice. For some licenses >> some additional notice is required. In many cases, this will be included >> within the dependent artifact. >> >> Now, check the terms of the Apache License 2.0 itself: >> >> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html >> >> Specifically, this bit: >> >> > You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You >> distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from >> the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to >> any part of the Derivative Works; and >> >> Note the following facts: >> >> * Benoit's original work has no copyright notice, so we have not removed >> anything. And there is nothing for us to retain. >> * Benoit's work has been licensed to us under the terms of the Apache >> License 2.0, so we are free to include it. >> * Adding an attribution for Benoit's work is good practice, but I think >> it's a "should" and not a "must". >> >> You have enough votes to do the release, if you feel comfortable with it. >> >> If you do not, you have two primary options: >> >> * Take this to legal-disc...@apache.org, where you can get a definitive >> thumbs up or thumbs down. This could take a few days. And you may only get >> advice, not a definitive decision. >> >> * Re-cut the release, fix the issues, and ask everyone to vote again. >> >> >> On 14 October 2013 12:08, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>wrote: >>> >>>> On 14 October 2013 12:04, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > also not my +0. i am not saying a blocking issue. However i do think >>>> that >>>> > this issue is important . We should be really strict about that >>>> preserving >>>> > the spirit of our license. >>>> > >>>> >>>> Please be clear about what you mean when you say "the spirit of our >>>> license". Can you describe in concrete terms anything about the current >>>> situation that is not in the spirit of our license? >>>> >>> >>> make sure that our code can be reused by anyone without worrying too >>> much about license and patent issues. >>> >>> - benoit >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Noah Slater >> https://twitter.com/nslater >> >> > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater > > -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
