mmmm, following your reasoning we should report also the copyright of
Sun Microsystem as we use a lot of interfaces of Java.
I think we have to think in terms of code distribution.
We are distributing code whose license usage has to be clear.
Our code does not work without the OSGi bundles and when the user
install the relative bundle s/he accepts their license. The same for
Java run time ...
The only problem I see concerns the kind of code we are assembling, if
the code is under GPL and our software would not work without it, then
the software would be considered as a derived software of GPL code but
the problem would be the license used, not the notice file.
BTW I think that asking to the legal@ ML would be fine ;-)
francesco
Karl Pauls wrote:
> In regard to the example, I'd argue that due to the ASL version of the
> OSGi subprojects and the OSGi terms we don't need to add it to the
> NOTICE file of released artifacts that only depend on it.
What if a subproject depended on something that was BSD licensed?
BSD has no reciprocity hence, same as ASL.
> Note, however, that for example the framework subproject will need
to add it
> (because it contains the AdminPermission stuff).
Does it? Why? The AdminPermission stuff is completely written within the
Felix project, it is not a copy of anything from the OSGi Alliance.
True, but it does copy/comprise an interface developed/copyrighted by
the OSGi Alliance. From my understanding this is a grey area and I'd
argue to add it to the NOTICE to be save ... but IANAL and I believe
stuff like that is first, not really tested in court and second,
subject to subtle differences in copyright laws all over the world. I
think we should add it to be save or ask at legal@ for a
clarification.
-> richard
regards,
Karl
