Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

2016-03-09 Thread Sam Ruby
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Craig Russell wrote: > >>> Agreed. Sebb's recommendation, AIUI, was to simply mention in LICENSE >>> that there is a non-ASF AL bundle without copying the entire LICENSE. > > That’s what I was objecting to. LICENSE is for licenses. If

Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

2016-03-07 Thread Alex Harui
On 3/7/16, 2:38 PM, "Craig Russell" wrote: >>>Agreed. Sebb's recommendation, AIUI, was to simply mention in LICENSE >>> that there is a non-ASF AL bundle without copying the entire LICENSE. > >That’s what I was objecting to. LICENSE is for licenses. If notice is

Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

2016-03-07 Thread Craig Russell
> On Mar 7, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Steve Varnau <steve.var...@esgyn.com> wrote: > >> From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 7, 2016 1:09 PM >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF >&g

RE: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

2016-03-07 Thread Steve Varnau
> -Original Message- > From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] > Sent: Monday, March 7, 2016 2:10 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF > > HI, > > Current recommendation is not to include it [1] but i

Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

2016-03-07 Thread Justin Mclean
HI, Current recommendation is not to include it [1] but it’s not an error to do so. Justin 1.http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For

RE: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

2016-03-07 Thread Steve Varnau
> From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] > Sent: Monday, March 7, 2016 1:09 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF > > On 3/7/16, 12:26 PM, "Craig Russell" <craig.russ...@oracle.com> wrote: > > >As I und

Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

2016-03-07 Thread Alex Harui
On 3/7/16, 12:26 PM, "Craig Russell" wrote: >As I understand it, LICENSE is for licenses. Period. If advertising is >required, the NOTICE file is used. Sorry, I should have been more clear. When I said "consider NOTICE" I meant that any NOTICE for the non-ASF AL

Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

2016-03-07 Thread Craig Russell
As I understand it, LICENSE is for licenses. Period. If advertising is required, the NOTICE file is used. If there are third party works included in a distribution that use the same Apache 2.0 license as any Apache components, the license file already contains the appropriate license. Section

Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

2016-03-07 Thread Alex Harui
On 3/7/16, 11:21 AM, "Steve Varnau" wrote: >Hi, > > > >I’m compiling information for LICENSE file for a binary distribution. We >(Trafodion) have a bundled dependency that is Apache-2.0 license, but not >part of ASF. Do we need to call these out in the license file, or

LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

2016-03-07 Thread Steve Varnau
Hi, I’m compiling information for LICENSE file for a binary distribution. We (Trafodion) have a bundled dependency that is Apache-2.0 license, but not part of ASF. Do we need to call these out in the license file, or only call out the things that are non-Apache-2.0? Thanks, --Steve