On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, ant elder<ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russell<craig.russ...@sun.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ant,
>>
>> On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party
>>>>> code
>>>>> > included in the propose release.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
>>>>> copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
>>>>
>>>> So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they
>>>> require attribution or not.
>>>>
>>>> I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require
>>>> attribution (notice).
>>>>
>>>
>>> The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so
>>> precisely defined.
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says:
>>>
>>> "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
>>> third-party notices"
>>
>> The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect to
>> find *all* *required* third-party notices.
>>>
>>> but there is nothing that defines what are "required third-party
>>> notices". The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says:
>>>
>>> "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."
>>
>> When a notice includes the words "required", "must", "shall", or other
>> imperative, then the notice is considered to be a "required third-party
>> notice". And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file of
>> the distribution.
>
> But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the
> entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the
> ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced:
>
> 1) the above copyright notice
> 2) this list of conditions
> 3) the following disclaimer
>
> So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in
> the NOTICE file?
effectively the complete license (including the copyright statement)
needs to be reproduced:
<blockquote>
ANTLR3 is:
Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terence Parr
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 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.
* Neither the name of the author nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
</blockquote>
> I've not seen any Apache projects do that.
i don't recall ever seeing that either but we do try to evolve. some
might interpret the above text as a LICENSE (and not a NOTICE). this
would then lead to the conclusion that the embedded text version in
LICENSE would be enough without duplication in NOTICE. (note that this
argument only applies when the license is embedded in the LICENSE
document.)
the easiest way to resolve this is just ask the legal committee to
take and document a decision about interpretation
FWIW i see no reason not to duplicate in both LICENSE and NOTICE as
that'll improve communication
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
