2013/3/25 Andy Seaborne <[email protected]>: > -- source inclusion > > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice > > I concluded that when it's included source code, if the whole source code is > used and that includes the copyright/license statement, it should be left > as-is and a pointer in LICENSE is sufficient. > > If, however, only part of the source code is used, or if it is not correctly > labelled with their BSD-style notice, then the full license goes in LICENSE. > Additionally, if there is a missing copyright, a copyright statement goes in > NOTICE (so there is no potential to believe it (c) anything else). > > It depends on how each item is used in Marmotta which means each usage needs > checking as to how it's used. > > (I also trying to learn here - it's not something I'd had to deal with. On > Jena we had included BSD source fragments and bundled binaries only and even > then we have full license in LICENSE where we are shipping binaries > ourselves on the principle of being self-contained for the bytes in the > artifact.) > > -- binary bundling > > Sebastain came up [1] with the info: > > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps > > when the binary artifact bundles BSD unchanged. > > Fabian, Sebastian, all - Does that agree with your understanding?
+1 agreed. If in doubt, follow the rule that the LICENSE may contain as much information as you like about the licensing of an included artifact. The NOTICE should be kept minimal and information is only added if required by a license of an included artifact. Most often, the NOTICE is only the default one and nothing has to be added. -- Fabian http://twitter.com/fctwitt
