[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2235?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14632853#comment-14632853
]
Ivan Kelly commented on ZOOKEEPER-2235:
---------------------------------------
{quote}All files under META-INF are there as the LICENSE text specifies, so I
don't think we have to do anything for the jackson jars. {quote}
I think we should add a pointer that the license/notice is contained in the jar.
{quote}
[regarding javacc] According to the ASF licensing HOWTO
(http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps), it is
sufficient to add a pointer to to the LICENSE file, and under normal
circumstances, there is no need to modify NOTICE. It also refers to the BSD
without the advertising clause, and I'm not sure what this is referring to.
{quote}
Advertising clause is in the 3 clause BSD, which basically says something like
we can't use the fact that we're using javacc to advertise the project. This
isn't even the cause though since it's 2 clause BSD. If we add a pointer to the
license for this is should be enough. I don't think it's in the jar though.
{quote}
[re jetty] By the argument above, I would think we don't need to, but the jar
does not seem to include a LICENSE file, so I'd say that it is safer to include
the license file. We are also covering the servlet-api transitive dependency.
Actually, the way I know that it is ALv2 is through this:
http://grepcode.com/snapshot/repo1.maven.org/maven2/org.mortbay.jetty/jetty/6.1.26{quote}
All the jetty licensing info is at http://www.eclipse.org/jetty/licenses.php.
They include a whole bunch of other stuff, which may need to be percolated up
(but maybe not, jetty has a bunch of submodules, so zk may only use a pure
jetty subset).
{quote}
[re jline] We need to add a pointer to the LICENSE file, not to the NOTICE
file, assuming we understand what the advertising clause is. {quote}
We need to include the copyright. Clause 2 of the BSD "2. Redistributions in
binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions
and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
provided with the distribution."
{quote}
[re netty]
The NOTICE file contains ponters to the licenses of dependencies. According to
the ASF HOWTO (http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#deps-of-deps):
{quote}
We should point to the notice in the jar from our notice though.
{quote}
I think clause 4d is just saying that you need to preserve the NOTICE file of a
dependency, not that it needs to appear in the NOTICE file of the derivate
work, in this case ZK.{quote}
Should be ok, but not all the jars include the notice and license files. Also,
the clause states, "Derivative Works that You distribute must include a
readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file".
I'm not sure in-jar is considered "readable".
The easiest, safest solution would be for each jar in lib/*, just add the
relevant license and notice file, and then add a pointer from our notice saying
that each jar has an accompanying license and notice. At least this way, all
bases should be covered.
> License update
> --------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-2235
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2235
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.4.6, 3.5.0
> Reporter: Flavio Junqueira
> Assignee: Flavio Junqueira
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 3.4.7, 3.5.1
>
> Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-2235.patch
>
>
> Updating license files and notice.txt as needed.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
