On 03/23/12 10:47, Rob Weir wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Pedro Giffuni<p...@apache.org> wrote:
On 03/23/12 08:43, Rob Weir wrote:
...
Further searching helps here ;-)
I have found [4]:
<quote>
...
All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should
be
included in the LICENSE document. This LICENSE (courtesy of Apache HTTPD)
is
a good example. The Apache License is at the top of the LICENSE document.
After that, the license for each non-Apache licensed component is
included,
along with a clear explanation of which files that license applies to.
...
</quote>
Thus, I derive from this best practice that an identification of the files
to which the mentioned license in the LICENSE file applies to should be
given.
But note the further complexity with AOO, that we have binary as well
as source packages in our release. And our binary packages includes
3rd party category-b libraries that are not included in our source
package. So we need to make this clear somehow in our LICENSE.
Maybe we need a LICENCE_source and LICENCE_binary file in SVN that
contains the respective. Then we can rename or cat that together to
produce the appropriate license for a package.
This is not accurate.
As I have mentioned tirelessly there is not such thing as a
source release and a binary release, just a release. That
means the one true LICENSE file includes all the source
and binary components.
And again Pedro, I have not used the term "source release" or "binary
release". I said, "we have binary as well as source packages in our
release.". That is perfectly accurate.
I noticed but you implied it when speaking of LICENSE_source
LICENSE_binary.
Rob's statement is not exactly false because we have an
exception in our release process as for the italian case
(and so far only the italian case) we will be bundling GPLd
dictionaries.
Not exactly false == true
You really need to take a course on logic.
Adding the GPL to our LICENSE file would be pretty
confusing for our users, besides this is only for the
italian case, so I think for that case having the GPL
in the dictionary should be enough. Also, we should
add a disclaimer that dictionaries (if included) don't
constitute derivate works.
All just IMHO, I won't block any attempt to automate
the generation of those files, in fact, I think I'll just not
touch those files anymore :).
Think of it this way: Are there any additional obligations placed on
someone who redistributes our binary packages, based on the additional
components included there? Does the ASF have any obligations, in
terms of required notices, etc., for the binaries we distribute?
Note, for example, clause 3.3 of the MPL 1.1:
We include MPL already in the LICENSE (category B section).
Even lawyers can distinguish if they are using binaries or source.
Pedro.
