Agreed about SGAs versus needing to repeat a license because it is a condition of the license. I used this as an example relative to the concern about compactness of NOTICE, not an assumption that you had the specific case I used to keep the key information at the top of NOTICE where it is easy to see.
- Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andy Seaborne Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 05:10 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Missing NOTICE Information? On 23/11/11 22:26, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Yes, don't make up copyright notices. However, attribution is > important, so it may be important to say something. > > My role model for this, before I started paying attention to Apache > projects, were the THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME files that Sun installed > with all of their binary distributions, including for OpenOffice.org > releases. > > I am not so concerned about the NOTICE getting a bit lengthy so long > as folks realize what it is. If license statements need to be > reproduced, as in the case of a BSD-equivalent, my one recent > experiment at a NOTICE on a (derivative) work of my own making has > that at the bottom of the NOTICE file below the more-brief "portions > of ... " acknowledgments for third-party-origin material. The > license text is a numbered reference. (I think 2nd party is a direct > contributor yes, where the 1st party is the downstream producer of > the derivative works, i.e., an Apache project? Or is it the > reverse?) > > This approach keeps the attribution summaries brief and at the top > where they can be reviewed easily. I go so far as to say where the > original work can be found upstream if I can. That's a personal > policy. > > The pattern is that provenance is clear and that someone adopting or > examining my software also has a friendly pointer to any > still-available original for satisfying their own interests, finding > other goodies, etc. I also provide upstream patches to simple things > I notice. (I must get around to some of that at the moment [;<). > > - Dennis I think the confusion is that we are not using the code under a BSD-equivalent. As I understand it (which is limited understanding), is that HP made a software grant to ASF identifying code on SourceForge. The Import/ is the copy for the record. We are using the code via the license to Apache, not the BSD-style license. (This gets confusing because, in BSD, the copyright statement is in the license text block.) [ ... ] I'm more than happy to acknowledge all that HP has contributed - indeed, if not in the formal part, somewhere else. We wouldn't be here today without HP's investment. Andy
