Hi, the statements about the elected licenses of dual-licensed stuff is not necessary and I think wrong at this place.
See http://incubator.markmail.org/thread/r3rj5snd2tnb4nzw Best, - Fabian 2013/3/26 Fabian Christ <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > I did not have a look but I have seen many discussions about to > extensive NOTICE files. So I would like to stress that point. The > point is that this file is not meant to be a list of what is included. > Is is meant to hold extra information that some licenses require. So > this is only about legal aspects. This is not a file to give credit or > to be fair to authors of included software. > > If you want to express credits or just list everything that is > included, regardless of the license, to give people a complete > overview, I would suggest to create just another file and name it > INCLUDED-SOURCES or similar. > > So, just keep the NOTICE minimal and for legal aspects only. If your > included sources or binaries require a lot of NOTICE because of their > license, fine. Then the NOTICE just has to be extensive ;) > > Best, > - Fabian > > 2013/3/26 Sebastian Schaffert <[email protected]>: >> Dear all (especially mentors), >> >> could you please have a look at the updated LICENSE and NOTICE files? I now >> took a very different approach following more-or-less what Apache Geronimo >> and Apache ODE are doing: >> - the NOTICE file contains attribution for all 3rd party software bundled >> in the respective distribution, a full copy of the 3rd party NOTICE file >> (if it exists), and a pointer to its source code >> - the LICENSE file contains a list of licenses (full-text) for reference >> >> I think this complies fully with the requirements detailled in >> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html . The only issue might be that it >> is too extensive. However, most licenses anyways require some form of >> attribution (especially also the Apache License), so it is easier to >> include all of them in the same way. In those cases where this is not >> strictly required, it is just fair towards the authors to mention them >> anyways :) >> >> The extensive NOTICE files will only be relevant in the binary >> distributions, because they bundle many 3rd party libraries. The source >> distribution NOTICE will only mention the Javascript and Java source files >> that we include in our source tree. >> >> The purpose of this approach is as follows: >> >> if someone wants to use and redistribute one of the distributions, >> regardless whether it is the source or one of the binary distributions, he >> needs to be aware of the copyrights of bundled libraries. So he can go to >> the NOTICE file and check there for any license that might conflict with >> his intentions. The NOTICE file mentions the copyright holders and licenses >> of all the bundled software, as well as pointers to the respective source >> code repositories (to know where it comes from) and (in case it exists) the >> content of the referred project's NOTICE file. In case he wants more >> details about the license, its full text can be looked up in the LICENSE >> file. >> >> Could you please check the following distributions at >> http://people.apache.org/~sschaffert/: >> - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-src.zip >> - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-webapp.zip >> >> The -ldpath distribution is not yet updated (it will be mostly a subset of >> the webapp). The -installer distribution is mostly the same as the -webapp, >> but contains in addition Apache Tomcat and IzPack. I am currently >> uploading, so it might be available only in a few minutes. :) >> >> Greetings, >> >> Sebastian > > > > -- > Fabian > http://twitter.com/fctwitt -- Fabian http://twitter.com/fctwitt
