I've opened a couple LEGAL jiras on this stuff to nail it down: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-118 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-119
Thanks all! Patrick On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under >>>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this: >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices >>> >>> See paragraph 4.4 of Apache License ver 2.0. >>> If Voldemort contains a NOTICE file, then it must be carried forward. >>> If it doesn't, IMHO you should have an entry in NOTICE that says the >>> work contains the Voldemort component. >> >> Not IMHO… ;-) If a NOTICE file is absent, ALv2 does not require any action. >> Most projects, that I'm aware of, do not create attributions in the NOTICE >> for 3rd party artifacts that are not explicitly required by the 3rd party >> license. If the Voldemort project wants an attribution, they should create a >> NOTICE file. >> >> If an apache project wants to create an unnecessary attribution, I'd let >> them (i.e. I wouldn't -1 the release)… Some people may feel more strongly on >> this matter… IMO, this does not need to be policy. Rather, it's a decision a >> project can make on it's own… >> > > Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B, > is this (B) a "third-party" work or not? Are the "parties" in this > case singular "the ASF" or the TLPs? Specifically, do I need to > include the NOTICE file from B in the NOTICE file for A? > > Patrick --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
