This is an extract (and reformatted) from
http://markmail.org/message/li2nqq7ttlrwz6vh
While the mesaage is about Apache OpenOffice (AOO) , this extract is
about principles of NOTICE and LICENSE.
It is relevant to Jena as general understanding. When the project
releases combined distributions (e.g. Fuseki), there is more licensing
foo to deal with because we reship other systems.
I'm collecting copies of licenses in:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/jena/Jena2/JenaZip/trunk/Licenses/
and there is an uber-NOTICE file.
((After the svn re-org might end up in a dist/ area off the top of the
tree as I've seen done elsewhere.))
The hardest thing to deal with for Jena is "hidden items" where, for
example, an Apache project places something in their NOTICE file so when
we redistribute, not just depend on, a binary, we need to include their
NOTICE statements (as I understand it).
---- Example ---
From Apache HttpComponents Client:
This project contains annotations derived from JCIP-ANNOTATIONS
Copyright (c) 2005 Brian Goetz and Tim Peierls. See http://www.jcip.net
----
-----------------------------------------
On 21/03/12 05:45, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
...
First, a general response:
There has been considerable (interminable?) debate on this list and
elsewhere as to what goes in LICENSE and what goes in NOTICE.
Personally, I don't really care how things get resolved; my main
motivation in starting this thread is that we avoid putting AOO through
the wringer that we put Rave, Kafka, etc. through, because what with all
those binaries the cost of rolling a release candidate for AOO is high.
So please, everyone... get it all out of your system now, and don't all
of a sudden decide that to -1 an AOO release candidate because in your
opinion something that was supposed to go in NOTICE ended up in LICENSE
or vice versa or whatever.
Now, to address the specifics:
Current fashion with regards to NOTICE seems to be that we put stuff
there like the advertising clause of a 4-clause BSD dependency, and that
we do *not* put stuff there like the the copyright notice on 2-clause or
3-clause BSD or ALv2 unless some copyright holder has decided that
they're (ahem) more special than all our other contributors and demanded
specific recognition (via "copyright relocation") in NOTICE. See
LEGAL-62 and LEGAL-59 as apologia, and
the Apache HTTPD LICENSE/NOTICE files as canonical samples.
IMO, the LICENSE/NOTICE dichotomy debates are sound and fury signifying
little, so long as the following are true:
* All code, either contributed to the ASF or bundled as a
dependency, has proper provenance documentation.
* All source code is clearly associated with the license the author
contributed it under, typically via licenses or license headers
embedded in individual source files, but sometimes via a local
README as might be appropriate for a commentless format like
JSON.
* All primary and dependency code is utilized under licenses
compatible with aggregate distribution under ALv2.
IANAL, but it seems to me that so long as we get individual source file
license tagging right, whether redundant licensing information ends up
in "LICENSE" or "NOTICE" is unlikely to be a determining factor in
whether somebody launches a lawsuit.
...
