Hi, During a recent release, we had the following comments on Airavata binary notice file [1] and the corresponding license file [2]. Based on Ate's comments we removed the extra NOTICEs for SLF4J, DOM4J, ICU4J and few others. But can some one please look at the NOTICE file [1] and comments below and suggest examples on what still is unnecessary and removed?
On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > * binary NOTICE file > - I think there are some unneeded/unwanted entries still. Some notices and > copyright statements should not legally be needed nor are they requested. > For instance for BSD/MIT like licenses which already are provided for > verbatim in the LICENSE file itself, there is no need to (and thus should > not) be covered *also* in the NOTICE file. Having those in the LICENSE file > should be enough. And certainly so if the 3rd party artifact doesn't have or > require an explicit NOTICE file itself. I think this applies to the NOTICE > entries for SLF4J, DOM4J, ICU4J, Jettison, etc. Please do check if each of > these notices really are necessary/required. > > - A different thing is the NOTICE provided for commons-logging (1.1.1). > The commons-logging jar come with a NOTICE file of its own (being an ASF > release it should). But IMO the additional content copied verbatim from that > NOTICE file can be ignored and thus removed. It concerns the following > section: > > This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown organization' > - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3 > - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12 > - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1 > > Only log4j is actually bundled with airavata and as an ASF artifact doesn't > need extra NOTICE coverage. And as the other referenced artifacts aren't > included or used there is no need to 'honor' this part from the > common-logging NOTICE file. > The ASL 2.0 license sections 4.d) says: "[...], excluding those notices that > do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works." On May 1, 2012, at 11:18 AM, sebb wrote: > The NOTICE file in the binary archive contains the following: > > ========================================================================= > == NOTICE file corresponding to section 4(d) of the Apache License, == > == Version 2.0, in this case for the Apache Airavata distribution. == > ========================================================================= > > This definitely should not be present. > > There are lots of other entries in the NOTICE file; it's not clear to > me whether they are all needed or not. > AIUI, the NOTICE file should only contain *required* notices (whereas > the LICENSE file should contain ALL applicable licenses) Thank you in advance for the guidance, Suresh [1] - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/airavata/trunk/modules/distribution/src/main/resources/NOTICE
