On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Craig L Russell<craig.russ...@sun.com> wrote: > Hi Ant, > > On Aug 17, 2009, at 8:40 AM, ant elder 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? > > Yes! This is the "required notice" that we're talking about. >
I don't agree. There's nothing in any ASF policy docs that i can find to back that up and the discussion on legal-discuss@ about LEGAL-59 agrees that nothing is needed in the NOTICE file for BSD licenses - http://apache.markmail.org/message/4ldaiay2vrzmlgxe So again, +1 from me to release this as is. ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
