On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > IAN ALE is much nicer. IAN, ALE! is better still :-)
:-). Good plan! > I removed mention of granted code from NOTICE because while watching > incubator-general@, it was mentioned that NOTICE should be minimal. Yes, it should be minimal. Word of advice: incubator-general@ is also full of people who are not lawyers. Their helpfulness can at times be...overwhelming :-). When in doubt, the authoritative stuff is under http://www.apache.org/licenses/ http://www.apache.org/legal/ not in e-mail or on the incubator website. > [[ > The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party > notices. The NOTICE file may also include copyright notices moved from > source files submitted to the ASF. > ]] > > "required third-party notices" is only PluggedIn Software and I'm taking > *may* as RFC 2119 "may", hence not required for HP granted material. So, err, I guess that last sentence is ambiguous :-). I think you should interpret it differently: I think it should be "The NOTICE file MUST include all copyright notices moved from source files submitted to the ASF, UNLESS the copyright holder removes the notice". I.e. because you cannot ever completely remove a copyright notice for someone else, if it's there, you SHOULD move it, and then you SHOULD move it to the NOTICE file, but you definitely MUST NOT erase it completely. > [[ > Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license, even > if that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party download > site into the distribution. > ]] > It's BSD and so the license is in the source code. > (I was taught back, in HP days, that, for BSD license, the statement must be > in the file, not elsewhere. IANAL.). Yes. If the BSD license is in the original source file then it MUST stay in the file (per the "do not modify any third party notices" rule). If you are producing a binary distribution, the license SHOULD also be in the top level LICENSE file of that distribution, per the BSD license itself: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. where "in the documentation and/or other materials" is standardized as "in the LICENSE file" for us. I think one or two projects (geronimo? cocoon?) build their composite for-binary-distribution LICENSE files when they produce the binary. Other projects simply put the BSD license into the LICENSE file that goes in the source distro, too. Much easier. A good example: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk/network_io/unix/inet_ntop.c has its license duplicated into http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk/LICENSE cheers, Leo PS: this kind of nitpicky thing really sucks to have to deal with doesn't it? IAN, ALE is required :-) If you look at the details of the google<->oracle lawsuit, though, you see the value of getting it really really right :-)
