On 10/12/09 15:03, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
Oops, let me edit that:
If we ARE allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we don't
have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two cases
and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me, this has nothing to
do with courtesy, it has to do with easing the maintenance.
Point is that the NOTICE file must not be removed by downstream
re-bundlers (unless a dependency referred to is removed).
Also there is some stuff we include (for example the icons used in the
web console) where we have to attribute to the source.
And there is other stuff, where this is not required at all. And
generally, if we don't need to attribute, we should not (this is the
simplest of all cases ;-) ).
So, if we attribute something which is not required to be attributed, it
is IMHO a question of courtesy (and I am all for attributing everything
we include, don't get me wrong).
How about this :
* Everything we include is added to the README file
* If something needs attribution it is also added to the NOTICE
file
This is probably as simple as it can get
Not quite. As simple as it gets is we attribute everything in the NOTICE
file...one single file for all use cases, no need to distinguish, no
multiple artifacts to maintain.
However, if we are NOT allowed to do so, then we have no choice.
My understanding is that we are probably NOT allowed ;-)
Well, reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my
point of view the overall issue to decide is:
1. Two-file approach, one for legal requirements and one for "courtesy".
2. One-file approach for both.
I prefer (2) if this is possible.
-> richard
Regards
Felix
-> richard
On 10/12/09 14:51, Richard S. Hall wrote:
If we are not allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we
don't have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two
cases and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me, this has
nothing to do with courtesy, it has to do with easing the maintenance.
However, if we are not allowed to do so, then we have no choice.
-> richard
On 10/12/09 14:46, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for bringing this up (again). The problem I have had for some
time now, is that our NOTICE files are not really consistent with the
legal intent of the NOTICE files.
Basically, the NOTICE files are part of the legal setup of Apache
products. As such they have have a fixed predefined header:
Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
This includes everything we might pack from other Apache projects.
For third party stuff included we have two options:
* attribution is required: add this to the NOTICE file
* attribution not required: do not add
Point is that the NOTICE file is not the place for courtesy -- it is the
place for legal requirements (and it is referred to by the LICENSE text
when it comes to redistributing ASF works).
Our full freedom to attribute to everything that we need, use, include
etc. is the README file:
* some project description
* some documentation links
* issue tracking links
* .... more ....
Using the README file we might even distinguish between souce and binary
and collective releases.
Therefore I propose:
* we turn your prooposed NOTICE structure into a proposed structure
for README files and be more verbose with respect to differences
of source and binary distributions.
* limit the contents of the NOTICE file to the bare legal minimum.
Regards
Felix
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I
realize that pretty much all of our projects both "include" and "use"
Apache developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on
Maven
to build). It seems silly to list Apache under both "include" and
"use",
especially since the main point of the NOTICE file is for third-party
notices.
I want to propose that we change our NOTICE file template to factor out
the Apache notice at the top and only use the remaining sections for
third-party notices; for example, here is a new NOTICE file for
framework:
Apache Felix Framework
Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
This project was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
(http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
Apache projects licensed under Apache License 2.0.
I. Included Third-Party Software
This product includes software developed at
The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
II. Used Third-Party Software
This product uses software developed at
The OSGi Alliance (http://www.osgi.org/).
Copyright (c) OSGi Alliance (2000, 2009).
Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
This product uses software developed at
The Codehaus (http://www.codehaus.org)
Licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
III. Overall License Summary
- Apache License 2.0
To be clear, the new boilerplate would be:
Apache Felix AAA
Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
(http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
I. Included Third-Party Software
BBB
II. Used Third-Party Software
CCC
III. Overall License Summary
- Apache License 2.0
- DDD
Where BBB and CCC would only reference third-party dependencies and DDD
would list their licenses.
What do you think?
-> richard
