I started a Google doc to try to clear this up in a simple "if/then" type layout: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eftfjrWpOG-dRkw9dZWRfcj3p_qCeE5xC-G0Y5j29Ck/edit
I have a bunch of confusion/open questions still, and email threads don't seem to be the best way to clear these things up, because different people have different opinions. Perhaps people could take a look at the above doc and add comments? This could then become a reference guide (or adendum to the existing licensing howto?). -Todd On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > There really isn't a difference between things copied without modification > and things copied with modification insofar as copyright is concerned. > > Copying without modification into a larger work is just a special case of a > derived work. The change introduced is represented by adding the rest of > the work. > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > For the sake of all of these discussions, are "bundled dependencies" and > > "work derived from other projects source code" 100% equivalent? In many > > cases we've copied (or ported) small bits of code from other projects and > > believe them to be 'derived work' from a copyright standpoint. My > > assumption is that there's no difference between that and "bundling" in > > which you are typically taking a release artifact as-is from another > > project. > > > > -Todd > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Marvin Humphrey < > mar...@rectangular.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > > Yea, even after this thread I'm not entirely sure on whether > copyright > > > > statements need to be duplicated from original source files into > NOTICE > > > or > > > > not. > > > > > > Copyright statements on their own within a source file? They do not. > > > > > > > For example, Subversion's LICENSE file mentions the 'linenoise' > library > > > and > > > > its copyrights, but its NOTICE file doesn't. > > > > > > That is the propagation of the *entire* BSD-2 *license* for linenoise > > from > > > the > > > source file to the LICENSE file. All members of the BSD license family > > are > > > templates which require insertion of a copyright statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/LICENSE?revision=1714640&view=markup#l369 > > > > > > Legally, not even the propagation of the BSD-2 license to LICENSE is > > > required. > > > So long as the bundled source files for linenoise retain that license > > > header, > > > the BSD-2 license is satisfied and redistribution is legally permitted. > > > > > > However, it is the policy of the ASF that the top level LICENSE file > > > summarize > > > information about the licensing of bundled dependencies. This provides > a > > > service to downstream consumers of ASF products -- they can examine the > > > top-level LICENSE file instead of having to look through every last > > source > > > file. > > > > > > Marvin Humphrey > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Todd Lipcon > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
