On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
> It's a basic "legal" question... maybe I'm blind, but couldn't find a > definitive answer, so I'm a worried to act without the blessing of > others. > > We got some binaries in the source code, which were created at the > FreeMarker project, and technically can't have a source code: > > src/main/misc/overloadedNumberRules/prices.ods > src/manual/en_US/docgen-originals/figures/overview.odg > src/manual/en_US/docgen-originals/figures/model2sketch_with_alpha.png > src/manual/en_US/docgen-originals/figures/tree_with_alpha.png > src/manual/en_US/favicon.png > src/manual/en_US/figures/model2sketch.png > src/manual/en_US/figures/overview.png > src/manual/en_US/figures/tree.png > src/manual/en_US/logo.png > src/manual/zh_CN/favicon.png > src/manual/zh_CN/figures/model2sketch.png > src/manual/zh_CN/figures/overview.png > src/manual/zh_CN/figures/tree.png > src/manual/zh_CN/logo.png > > Because they are binaries, they have no copyright header, which, at > least in some heads (on the Incubator list back then), leads to > uncertainty regarding their origin and license. I would think that if > I say nothing, then it's implied that the LICENSE at the root applies. > But, to make that explicit, currently we have a footnote in the LICENSE: > > https://github.com/apache/freemarker/blob/2405e61bde8a2d8f74f7ba598b4e1b > 8ed1e244c1/LICENSE > > I have looked at some TLP-s back then, and saw that they state nothing > about the images (that they have produced, hopefully). So that must be > acceptable. Not sure why OpenOffice files would be different then. > Anyway, I really would like to get rid of any "footnotes" from LICENSE > (or NOTICE). Can I? > I am fine either way: the text in LICENSE makes the origin and license of these files explicit; without it, considering it is a small set of trivial artifacts, I agree that the implicit natural assumption would be that they are delivered with the same license. Jacopo
