On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Dennis; > > > On 03/19/12 11:55, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> >> Apache releases handle the equivalent of the THIRDPARTYLICENSES by >> combined use of the NOTICE and LICENSE files. > > > We are aware of that. The THIRDPARTYLICENSES thing is a left over from > the LGPL days and is not relevant for our purposes. I only use it as > reference but if someone else doing this stuff in another, more > systematic way, please raise your hand and I won't interfere. > > > >> Also, as has been determined elsewhere, the NOTICE and LICENSE files on >> a binary distribution may be different than on the source code because of >> additional third-party material that may be embedded in a binary release. > > > It was also determined that the LICENSE file would only carry the AL2. > At this time whatever was "determined" is not really relevant. I would > prefer to have some reference for this: the branding guide doesn't > mention anything about the LICENSE file, other than the fact that it > exists. >
My experience from working on an ODF Toolkit release is that LICENSE file contains the text of ALv2,as well as the text of all other licenses included in the release. NOTICES includes the Apache copyright as well as any other *required* notices that the other licenses might state. And no, this is not at all obvious from reading anything on the Apache website,in the podling guide, etc. We did catch this until we put a RC up for a vote. > >> When the IP clearance is completed, the THIRDPARTYLICENSES notice should >> disappear and the NOTICE and LICENSE files should carry the necessary >> information instead. >> >> > Replying to your other email, yes RAT is interesting but we are currently > excluding a lot of files from that analysis. > > Pedro.
