Here are my 2 cents... For 1.c and 2.a I am not sure how true that is anymore...while some of those files still exist in Shindig, I am willing to guess that have been modified and are no longer the same as what is in http://opensocial-resources.googlecode.com/svn/spec/0.8/. Would we have to go through and check to make sure whether each file has changed?
Seems like 1.f is reasonable. Regards, RYAN J. BAXTER From: Ate Douma <[email protected]> To: [email protected], Date: 01/27/2012 09:54 AM Subject: Re: NOTICE and LICENSE files On 01/27/2012 01:57 PM, Ciancetta, Jesse E. wrote: > I've been working with Ate on the Rave project since its inception and personally have 100% trust in his opinions and recommendations on these types of matters (and many other matters as well). Ate has been helping Rave work though these same type of issues from the start and he's been active on the general@ list in many discussions regarding NOTICE and LICENSE files with other ASF'ers as well. > > And aside from my interactions with Ate on the Rave project I also know that he's been involved with the ASF for quite a long time (he's an ASF member, commiter on multiple projects, Incubator PMC member, mentor to multiple projects, ...) so he's definitely drawing from a good wealth of experience here. > > So my vote would be to take Ate's recommendations and go ahead and implement them. And if he's willing to submit patches for the changes then all the better. > > I think one JIRA issue would be sufficient -- if no one objects I can go ahead and create a ticket for it later today. Cool Jesse, and thanks for the flattery ;) But please don't assume I'm all knowing in these matters, just trying to be concise here. So don't just take my suggestions or comments for granted: in the end it is the Shindig PMC who is responsible to make the proper assessment on all this. If you create a JIRA ticket for it, I can and will try to create patches for the most important of the issues. But I can't do that (yet) for all, at least not until some of the questions are answered. In particular the following need feedback and conclusion from the Shindig PMC itself: - 1.c - 1.f - 2.a Furthermore, those conclusions, especially like for 1.f, can have quite an impact on which changes need to be done and where. So, before I start creating patches (which may take a few days), I'd prefer having some feedback from the PMC specifically on the above 3 listed issues. Note: if 1.f is to be done, it'll need a Google representative to do the actual execution (commit)! Thanks, Ate > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ryan J Baxter [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:56 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: NOTICE and LICENSE files >> >> Ate, these seem like valid concerns, but I am not a lawyer so not sure I >> understand all the implications :) What does the rest of the community >> think? What is the best way to address these? I assume we want to start >> by creating JIRAs.... >> >> -Ryan >> >> >> >> >> From: Ate Douma<[email protected]> >> To: [email protected], >> Date: 01/25/2012 10:05 PM >> Subject: NOTICE and LICENSE files >> >> >> >> Hi Shindig team, >> >> Since some time the ASF rules and requirements for what should go into >> NOTICE >> and LICENSE have been further discussed, clarified and made more explicit. >> This for a large part happened within the Apache Incubator, but have >> resulted in >> updates to the online instructions and clarifications which applies to >> whole of >> the ASF. >> >> For Apache Rave I'm currently reviewing our own compliance with these >> rules, and >> in particular with respect to the NOTICE files as those especially have >> some >> downstream consequences making it important to minimize the 'burden' for >> downstream users, and the guidelines for these have very recently been >> updated. >> >> As Apache Rave makes use of and extends and redistributes Apache Shindig, >> I've >> been reviewing the NOTICE and LICENSE files provided (packaged) by Shindig >> to >> make sure we're honoring the appropriate notices and license usages of >> Shindig. >> >> Note: I've only looked at Shindig Java, we're not using the PHP >> implementation >> and I'm definitely not qualified to properly review that side. >> >> After this review though I've several questions as well as some >> suggestions for >> the NOTICE and LICENSE files, and some IMO concern omissions which are >> required >> to be fixed from a legal POV. >> >> I apologize upfront for the lengthly email, unexpected by myself, this >> ended up. >> But I tried to be as clear and concise as possible. I hope some of you can >> >> endure reading through this and follow up on it, because some if the >> issues >> below are serious enough to potentially be blockers for a next release. >> >> As reference, I'm trying to follow these rules and guidelines (some of >> which >> were recently updated or better clarified): >> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html >> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html >> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices >> >> and in addition the following LEGAL JIRA tickets for additional >> background: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26 >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-62 >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-118 >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-119 >> >> An important note upfront: below I'm suggesting several *removals* of >> attributions from NOTICE files. The reason for this is that *only* >> required >> attributions should be provided in the NOTICE file, and often even that >> isn't >> needed if the 3rd party license already provides the required attribution >> itself! >> And the reason why only the minimal required attributions should be >> provided in >> the NOTICE file is because the Apache 2.0 license *requires* us to retain >> all >> upstream (e.g. Apache Shindig) NOTICE attributions, if applicable to the >> redistribution. >> But of course there should not be too little attribution because that >> might make >> the release and even further downstream (re)distributions illegal! >> >> >> Here are my questions, suggestions and/or issues encountered: >> >> 1) file /NOTICE >> =============== >> a. Suggestion: "Copyright 2010" should be updated to "Copyright 2012" >> >> b. Notice for "This software includes software developed at the ASF[...]" >> occurs >> twice. Suggestion to remove the duplicate. >> >> c. Question: there is a notice that the product includes software >> developed by >> the OpenSocial Foundation, with a reference to [...]/spec/0.8. >> Is that still valid? NB: the current/latest spec doesn't provide any >> 'software' >> at all anymore. Is Shindig still embedding these 0.8 spec code? >> >> d. There is a notice for both swfobject and OAuth code usage with a >> reference to >> their (both) MIT based license. However that license itself isn't included >> in >> the (root) LICENSE file, while that is the *only* requirement of that >> specific >> license. What not is required by that license though is providing an >> additional >> attribution for it in the NOTICE file. Suggestion: append the MIT license >> to the >> /LICENSE file (marked being used by both swfobject and OAuth) and remove >> both >> notices from the NOTICE file. >> >> NB: for swfobject its LICENSE *is* included in the /features/LICENSE file, >> >> however the root /LICENSE file should at least have it too (or only, see >> 5) >> further below) for the full source release distribution (as well in the >> project >> [tag] svn root folder itself as that is to be considered also a >> 'distribution'). >> >> e. There is a notice for including OpenAjax provided software. However, >> the >> OpenAjax software nor its foundation (website) doesn't require to provide >> a >> notice. Their license is Apache 2.0 based, which does require attributing >> a >> notice, *if* there is notice. But as there isn't any (not in the code nor >> anywhere specified on their website), Shindig doesn't need to attribute >> them >> either. Suggestion: remove the notice for OpenAjax. >> NB: IMO the /extras/NOTICE file therefore isn't needed either. >> >> f. The extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/wave/*.js files all >> still have >> a "Copyright 2010 Google Inc." header. It seems to me for these files the >> following rule is applicable: >> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright >> Suggestion: A Google employee like Paul should do this and then move the >> copyright statement to the NOTICE file. >> >> g. The /features/NOTICE file contains an additional attribution for "sha 1 >> JS >> impl" developed by Google Inc. This attribution however is missing from >> the root >> /NOTICE file. See also 5) further below. >> >> >> 2) file /LICENSE >> ================ >> a. See also 1.c) above. There is a license appended for the OpenSocial >> Javascript API. Question: is that still valid/needed/applicable? >> >> b. See also 1.d) above. the swfobject and OAuth MIT used license is >> missing. >> >> c. The /content/editor/CodeMirror-0.8/LICENSE file should be appended >> here. >> >> >> 3) file /extras/NOTICE >> ====================== >> See also 1.e) above. IMO this file can be removed. And it isn't used >> anyway, >> e.g. not embedded in a build artifact either. >> >> >> 4) module extras build artifacts >> ================================ >> See also 1.f) above. If/when the "Copyright 2010 Google Inc." copyright >> headers >> are moved from the wave/*.js files to a NOTICE file, *then* that >> attribution >> will also be required to be packaged in the build artifacts for the extras >> module. >> >> Suggestion (if/when applicable in this case): make use of >> appended-resources >> which will be automatically processed by the maven-remote-resources-plugin >> to >> *append* additional NOTICE (and/or LICENSE) fragments to the automatically >> >> injected NOTICE/LICENSE files. This mechanism is common practice by many >> maven >> based projects and probably the easiest to maintain extra notices and >> licenses >> needed for build artifacts. >> >> For an example of how to use this, see: >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/rave/trunk/rave- >> shindig/src/main/appended-resources >> >> >> >> Note: the META-INF/NOTICE fragment under the above location itself is >> *not* >> (yet) a proper example. I'm in the process of cleaning that one up >> (probably >> removing many/most of those attributions), similar to and even related to >> this >> email itself ;) >> >> >> 5) module features >> ================== >> a. See also 1.d) and 1.g) above: the /features/LICENSE and >> /features/NOTICE >> files contain fragments which should be moved to the root /LICENSE and >> /NOTICE >> files. >> >> b. In addition, these files probably better be removed and be replaced by >> using >> LICENSE and NOTICE fragment files under appended-resources, see 4) above. >> This >> will reduce the maintenance (NOTICE copyright statement will automatically >> be >> adjusted for the proper year(s) by maven-remote-resources-plugin for >> instance). >> >> When doing this, the current maven build resources configuration which >> *only* >> adds the /features/NOTICE file to the build artifacts can/should be >> removed. >> >> c. Doing 5.b) above then also will fix adding missing 3rd party LICENSEs >> (like >> for MIT) in the build artifacts. As it is right now, the features >> artifacts are >> not ASF release compliant because of this... >> >> d. Finally see also other remarks under 1) above for several of the NOTICE >> >> attributes which might not be needed or are duplicated (ASF attribution). >> >> >> 6) module java >> ============== >> a. See comments above for 1) and 5). >> AFAIK the /java/LICENSE and /java/NOTICE files are only used (included) by >> the >> assembly to produce the shindig-java package. They are not used (included) >> by >> any of java sub modules, although that might have been the intention? >> Suggestion: fix and then move these LICENSE and NOTICE files to the >> assembly >> module itself, whereas these then should contain the aggregated LICENSEs >> and >> NOTICEs as relevant for the shindig-java package contents, e.g. covering >> (only) >> for the -common, -features, -gadgets, -social-api and -extras modules. >> >> b. As mention above, none of the java sub modules use the java LICENSE or >> NOTICE >> files, and in fact none of the build artifacts have anything else than the >> base >> ASF NOTICE and LICENSE file embedded... That clearly is not properly >> covering >> the ASF release requirements, which in particular is not valid for >> shindig-server, which incorporates many 3rd party dependencies with >> additional >> NOTICE and LICENSE requirements. >> >> c. module java/uber >> As this module repackages and bundles several other shindig-* artifacts, >> it >> should also bundle an aggregated NOTICE and LICENSE file based on those >> merged >> artifacts. Suggestion is to use a separate appended-resources >> configuration like >> described at 4) again. Regrettably this will mean some redundancy work as >> the >> maven-remote-resources-plugin or the maven-shade-plugin cannot >> auto-magically do >> this themselves. >> >> d. module java/server >> This war module bundles practically all other shindig (java related) >> modules, >> except sample, so should at least also have an aggregated LICENSE and >> NOTICE >> file covering those other shindig modules. In addition, many 3rd party >> dependencies are bundled which some also require additional notice and >> licenses >> to be covered. >> >> As far as I have been able to determine this includes at least: >> - joda-time-2.0.jar: requires a notice attribution (see embedded NOTICE >> file) >> - json-20070829.jar: requires http://www.json.org/license.html >> - jstl-1.2.jar: requires CDDL 1.0 license (see embedded LICENSE.txt) >> - modules-0.3.2.jar: dual licensed under either LGPL or AS 2.0. Therefore >> this >> dependency requires a notice saying under which license (AS 2.0 it is >> used) it >> is used. >> - protobuf-java-2.4.1.jar: requires new BSD license, see: >> http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/ >> - slf4j-api-1.5.11.jar& slf4j-jdk14-1.5.11.jar: requires MIT license, >> see: >> http://www.slf4j.org/license.html >> - xmlpull-1.1.3.1.jar: public domain, see: >> http://www.xmlpull.org/v1/download/unpacked/LICENSE.txt , this requires >> attribution in the NOTICE file, see: http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html >> - xpp3_min-1.1.4c.jar: requires Indiana University Extreme! Lab Software >> License >> 1.1, find it in source distribution at >> http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/dist/java- >> repository/xpp3/distributions/xpp3-1.1.4c_src.tgz >> >> >> - xstream-1.4.2.jar: requires a BSD license, see: >> http://xstream.codehaus.org/license.html >> >> ========== >> >> The above list is quite extensive and if all valid and/or of concern, will >> take >> some effort to resolve. If so desired, I'm willing to help out and produce >> >> patches, but it'll depend on which of the above issues do need resolving >> and >> than in some cased a choice how exactly. >> >> FWIW, for Apache Rave's dependency on shindig-server, we can now already >> start >> fixing our own needed NOTICE and LICENSE files according the above >> findings, but >> of course it would be very helpful if/when we can rely on fixed LICENSE >> and >> NOTICE files produced by Shindig itself in the future to merge. >> >> Many thanks for the attention already if you made it this far just >> reading! >> >> Thanks, Ate >> Apache Rave >> >
