On Jan 27, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27/01/2014 20:21, Alan Cabrera wrote: >> [...] >> Good point. I am speaking of the Java code and test files that have the >> copyright. They don’t need it, IIUC. >> >> IMO, this needs to be fixed. > > +1 - ASF license header must not contain copyright information. > >>>> [...] >>>>> (c) in binary artifacts (as jpa, but also some WAR files in dist) the >>>>> file do not contain attributions (e.g. third-party notices for bundled >>>>> libraries, see again [2]). >>>> The third-party notices that should be in the NOTICE file are only those >>>> that are required by the thrid-parties, otherwise they are left out. Are >>>> their any that mean this stricter requirement? >>> Sure: >>> >>> olingo-odata2-dist-jpa-incubating-1.1.0-RC01-jpa.zip and >>> org.eclipse.persistence-javax.persistence contain >>> >>> javax.ws.rs-javax.ws.rs-api-2.0-m10.jar - CDDL, notice is required >>> according to paragraph 3.3 of such license >>> org.eclipse.persistence-javax.persistence-2.0.5.jar - EPL, notice is >>> required >> Paragraph 3.3 seems to refer to modifications of the source code, not usage >> of or dependency on the source code. > > You are right, bad reference. > This should work out better; as stated by > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#category-b (in this category both > CDDL and EPL fall): > > Although the source must not be included in Apache products, the NOTICE file, > which is required to be included in each ASF distribution, must point to the > source form of the included binary (more on that in the forthcoming > "Receiving and Releasing Contributions" document). Ahh, reciprocity. Thanks! Regards, Alan
