On 3/27/2012 8:01 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann<
orwittm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hi
Thx for the input so far.
My work stopped, because of the ongoing discussion on legal-discuss. Greg
Stein has started at legal-discuss a corresponding thread, named "use of
LICENSE and NOTICE". To be sure how to proceed I will send the following
information to legal-discuss:
List of links on apache.org with information regarding the content of the
LICENSE file and the NOTICE file which I have found:
[1]
http://www.apache.org/legal/**src-headers.html#notice<http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice>
[2]
http://apache.org/legal/**resolved.html#required-third-**party-notices<http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices>
[3] http://www.apache.org/legal/**src-headers.html#header-**
existingcopyright<http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright>
[4]
http://www.apache.org/**licenses/example-NOTICE.txt<http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt>
[5] http://incubator.apache.org/**guides/releasemanagement.html#**
best-practice-license<http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license>
[6] http://incubator.apache.org/**guides/releasemanagement.html#**
best-practice-notice<http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-notice>
My intepretation of this information and the information given in the
thread at legal-discuss is the following:
- Content of LICENSE file - general conclusion:
-- Apache license at the top
-- Licenses of all 3rd party components included in the specific package
of a release inclusive a clear identification of the files to whose the
license apply.
- Content of NOTICE file - general conclusion:
-- Standard copyright notice as given at [1] at the top
-- Notices which are required by 3rd party component licenses which should
be quite rare.
One other thing in the NOTICE file, which is talked about in [3] above.
That is relocated copyright notices. For example, with the ODF Toolkit,
many of original files had an IBM copyright statement in them. We removed
these notices for the individual files and put a single line in the NOTICE
reading, "Portions copyright IBM, 2009-2011. All rights reserved." I
think the equivalent here would be the files that Andrew updated from
Oracle. If Oracle wants a similar statement it would go in the NOTICE
file.
That is my intention. (after we get the 1400+ that don't pass RAT scan
down to 0)
A.
- Further conclusions by orw for the Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
project:
-- We (AOO incubating) are planning to release a source package and binary
packages. The binary package will include certain category-b licensed
components. Thus, I assume that we need for each package an own LICENSE
file and an own NOTICE file.
-- The LICENSE file and the NOTICE file for the source package will cover
the licenses of our source files.
-- The LICENSE files and the NOTICE files for the binary package will
cover additionally all licenses from the enabled category-b licensed
components.
If there are no objections I will continue my work regarding the above
interpretations.
Best regards, Oliver.
On 23.03.2012 11:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
Hi,
I will have a look at the NOTICE and the LICENSE file - both located in
main/ -,
if there is something missing.
Pedro already did a great job here - I am more or less expecting that
everything
is already covered in these files.
If there is any input regarding its content, please provide the
information here
- Thanks in advance.
I will mainly assure that the notices and licenses of the current work
regarding
the RAT scan which results in certain entries in the rat-excludes are also
covered in the NOTICE and LICENSE file.
Help is very welcome here.
Thus again, if you know of the one or the other 3rd party
component/library/code, drop me a note. I will check, if these are
reflected in
these files.
Thanks in advance, Oliver.
