On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am reading http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html . Yes
> LICENSE also needs to contain more things as well. Yes, there are
> several situations where NOTICE does not need to change, but this is
> the key sentence:
>
> "Aside from Apache-licensed dependencies which supply NOTICE files of
> their own, it is uncommon for a dependency to require additions to
> NOTICE."
>
> Lots of the dependencies I see here are Apache-licensed dependencies
> with NOTICE files. The Apache License 2 clause 4 means any (relevant)
> parts of the NOTICE files must be included in a distribution, and the
> NOTICE file is the place for that*.
>
> Here's a correct (AFAIK) example from Spark:
>
> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE
> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> Some of the same dependencies are included in both.
>
> I don't see why this doesn't apply to Drill too? Unless the guidance
> above is out of date.
I admire the good-faith efforts that the Spark (and Solr) folks have put
in attempting to comply with their interpretation of ASF requirements, but I
don't think we should encourage podlings to emulate the current state of their
licensing documentation.
Complicated NOTICE files impose a burden on downstream consumers trying to
evaluate the licensing of our products. The CYA instinct to throw everything
vaguely notice-ish into NOTICE is understandable, but destructive -- because
the ALv2 section 4(d) imposes more harsh obligations for content in NOTICE
than for content in LICENSE.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#redistribution
d. If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution,
then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable
copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file,
excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the
Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a
NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within
the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the
Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative
Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear.
[...]
Recall that the NOTICE file originated through what I would characterize as a
"clever hack" to get the ALv1.1 advertisement clause out of the license so it
wouldn't conflict with the GPL. (See <http://s.apache.org/XAf> and
<http://s.apache.org/jP>.) It's unfortunate that so much extraneous material
has landed in NOTICE in the years since, and that so many hours have been
burned by people trying to figure out how to propagate it.
Here's Roy (in 2008):
http://s.apache.org/wbM
NOTICE is not for describing the license of each artifact.
It is only for required attributions.
[...]
> Furthermore, I assume it is not problematic to have more stuff in the
> NOTICE file(s) than is really required.
Yes, it is problematic. Consider it a tax on all downstream recipients.
> * I am not clear whether distribution a .jar, which has its NOTICE
> file embedded, "counts". This would not be the case in an 'uber' jar
> the the project distributes, and there are some third-party uber jars
> here like hive-exec, but I don't see a Drill uber jar. Maybe that
> counts; maybe it's safer just to populate NOTICE appropriately. Or,
> avoid shipping copies of all these jars directly?
Such confusion is a perfect illustration of why bloated NOTICE files are worse
than bloated LICENSE files.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
