Re: Advice on binary NOTICE

2016-03-22 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > It simple I like that. :) As expressed in another thread, I believe simple rules are really helpful for newcomers. > It will also tend to make NOTICE > files larger and that has a flow on effect to downstream

Re: Advice on binary NOTICE

2016-03-21 Thread Stephen Mallette
As Justin has played a big role in shaping our LICENSE/NOTICE to this point, I would most immediately lean on his advice here and just not add the Jackson notice given that it's not well-formed. The fact that I can now recognize a faulty NOTICE and question whether it should go in shows that with

Re: Advice on binary NOTICE

2016-03-20 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, > * The PMC is spared from performing analysis of dependency NOTICE content. > * Verbatim aggregation can be achieved programmatically, allowing for >automated solutions. It simple I like that. However there's probably no TLP or incubator project (with bundled Apache licensed code)

Re: Advice on binary NOTICE

2016-03-20 Thread Henri Yandell
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: > > I suspect 'relevant' means those parts of a NOTICE relating to the parts > of > > the product you use. > > Yes, that was the intent.

Re: Advice on binary NOTICE

2016-03-20 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: > I suspect 'relevant' means those parts of a NOTICE relating to the parts of > the product you use. Yes, that was the intent. That sentence references section 4d of the ALv2, specifically this phrase: excluding those

Re: Advice on binary NOTICE

2016-03-20 Thread Henri Yandell
I suspect 'relevant' means those parts of a NOTICE relating to the parts of the product you use. In this case you'd include the whole file (ie +1 to Marvin). I suspect 'relevant' needs clarification in the docs. Hen On Friday, March 18, 2016, Stephen Mallette wrote: >

Re: Advice on binary NOTICE

2016-03-19 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Stephen Mallette wrote: > The Jackson JSON processing lib which is Apache 2.0 licensed carries this > NOTICE file: >8 snip 8< > Does anyone have any advice on what portion of this is relevant for > inclusion in a binary NOTICE file?

Advice on binary NOTICE

2016-03-19 Thread Stephen Mallette
The Jackson JSON processing lib which is Apache 2.0 licensed carries this NOTICE file: -- # Jackson JSON processor Jackson is a high-performance, Free/Open Source JSON processing library. It was originally written by Tatu Saloranta (tatu.salora...@iki.fi),

Re: Advice on binary NOTICE

2016-03-19 Thread Justin Mclean
HI, I’m also not a lawyer, but I can't see anything in that NOTICE that would need to copied across. If the notice was well formed it would have a copyright line so perhaps just as that would follow the intent? Remember the NOTICE contents effects downstream projects and it needs to be keeps

Re: Advice on binary NOTICE

2016-03-18 Thread Nick Kew
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:57:42 -0400 Stephen Mallette wrote: > "If the dependency supplies a NOTICE file, its contents must be > analyzed and the relevant portions bubbled up into the top-level > NOTICE file." With a NOTICE that length, why not include it complete? The main