On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Excellent. More eyes on these issues is great. Thanks for spending your time
> on this.
+1
Sean and I have continued our conversation offline and were able to clarify
some aspects of our (very imperfect) documentation. I believe we are now
largely in agreement, and I'm grateful for his conscientiousness and tenacity.
Here's my summary of where we ended up:
* Think of NOTICE not as a vehicle for conveying information to downstream
consumers, but as a mechanism for compelling redistributors to relay
information.
* Some of the advice in the outdated draft document
<http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html> is misguided in that it attempts
to use NOTICE in ways which are inappropriate given the obligations
imposed by the ALv2. For instance, 3party.html instructs that
all "Category B" dependencies get a specific treatment in NOTICE; the
final version at <http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html> omits this
requirement while still implicitly allowing use of NOTICE when legally
necessary.
* Stuff shouldn't end up in NOTICE unless it was required by a copyright
owner. (See <http://s.apache.org/ZEA>.)
* The only original text that we should be adding to NOTICE in our ASF
capacity is the ALv1.1 advertising clause's replacement.
* Another example of stuff that ends up in NOTICE is a contributor's
copyright notice that they or their agent have relocated to NOTICE while
deleting such notices from individual source files.
* Not much else passes the test.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
