> I would assume because it's a dependancy and not bundled in the source release.
I searched for "copied from" to test that assumption and found code from Apache Commons: https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/bb0befeebe18a9b8ff50e686a3d06e84ccdfb108/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/http/fileupload/package-info.java#L20-L22 That lines up with my reading of LEGAL-234. If a copyright line for each project was required in NOTICE, then the question of which dates are required would not be relevant. And the conclusion to that question was that "My [Mark T.] reading of [1] is that you only need the Accumulo dates." On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:04 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > Mark is talking about what they did for the Tomcat NOTICE, with no > mention > > of Commons: https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/master/NOTICE > > I would assume because it's a dependancy and not bundled in the source > release. Even if that is the case older projects may not be in line with > ASF policy or do thing in a different way because of other reasons. > > Only things that are bundled in the release need to be mentioned in > LICENSE and NOTICE. > > > And the result was this Accumulo NOTICE: > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/blob/master/NOTICE > > Which from a casual glance looks fine, the license includes JQuery, Flat > and code form OneLab. None of those are ALv2 or have other required notices > so there’s no effect NOTICE. > > Thanks, > Justin > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Ryan Blue Software Engineer Netflix
