----- Original Message ----- > From: Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:26 PM > Subject: Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As > of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19)) > > 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.
Well I'm fairly certain explicit instructions for what belongs in the LICENSE file are written down both on the www site and in the incubator docs, as I'm sure I both read and wrote some of it. Patches to make it clearer are welcome. > >> >>> 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. >
