On 5/31/10 10:56 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> 
> On May 27, 2010, at 9:35 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 5/27/10 12:21 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 26, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can find it either in sections 7.1.4 and 7.2 of the
>>>> bean_validation-1_0-final-spec.pdf or from the RI source at -
>>>> http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/hibernate/validator/tags/v4_0_2_GA/hibernate-validator/src/main/xsd/
>>>>
>>>> which uses ASL 2.0 -
>>>> http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/hibernate/validator/tags/v4_0_2_GA/hibernate-validator/license.txt
>>>>
>>>> The schemas still have not been posted on-line, so we have to include
>>>> them....
>>>>
>>>> xsi:schemaLocation="http://jboss.org/xml/ns/javax/validation/configuration
>>>> validation-configuration-1.0.xsd"
>>>>
>>>> Not sure why they haven't been included or linked to from Sun/Oracle yet
>>>> - http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/
>>>
>>> Thanks. If that's the case, then I see no need for the following in the 
>>> NOTICE file:
>>>
>>> "The Bean Validation JSR-303 module (bval-jsr303) includes the Bean 
>>> Validation
>>> schemas:
>>>    validation-configuration-1.0.xsd
>>>    validation-mapping-1.0.xsd
>>> from the JSR-303 specification under ASL 2.0.
>>>
>>> JBoss, Home of Professional Open Source
>>> Copyright 2008-2009, Red Hat, Inc. and/or its affiliates, and individual 
>>> contributors"
>>>
>>> There's no NOTICE file in their Bean Validation source. Therefore, there's 
>>> no requirement for any mention in our NOTICE file. IMO, it should be 
>>> removed from the root NOTICE file (and also from 
>>> bundle/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/NOTICE.vm and any other NOTICE 
>>> file, where it is mentioned).
>>>
>>
>> Wasn't sure, as all of their generated websites and docs (TCK Spec and
>> TCK test harness) contains the following -
>>
>> Copyright © 2009 Red Hat, Inc.
>>
>> http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/beanvalidation/tck/reference/html_single/
>>
>> Should I start a RC3 or wait another day to collect more feedback?
> 
> Here's the initial feedback from trademarks@:
> 
> On May 27, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> 
>>>> Legal-internal@: do we have any policy or suggestions on including
>>> any sorts of trademark attributions for our own trademarks in our
>>> product's NOTICE files?
>>
>> A trademark becomes such by being used *as a trademark* in the places where
>> trademarks ordinarily go on a product or its packaging or, in modern
>> situations, on the website where the software product is advertised and
>> downloaded.
>>
>> Notices in the form of a TM or R symbol, or a more eloquent notice,
>> identifying the trademark owner on the product or packaging or website are
>> helpful to identify the trademarks for those who don't know a trademark from
>> a rat's ass. 
>>
>> Notices in the NOTICE file are helpful to those who will download and
>> perhaps modify Apache software so that they may easily recognize trademarks
>> already in use for that software. 
>>
>> Helpful trademark notices aren't legally required, but you'll have a harder
>> time collecting damages for trademark infringement if you don't give good
>> notice to the trademark unaware.
> 
> So, would seem the trademark notice is optional. I'll be OK with or without 
> the Trademark attribution in the NOTICE files. There is not yet a policy 
> regarding this. So, once the unnecessary information is removed from the 
> NOTICE file in RC3 and NOTICE files are consistent, I should be ok...
> 

Removed using BVAL-67 and r950324.

> Did I mention this already? The root NOTICE file contains:
> 
> "The following copyright notice(s) were affixed to portions of this code
> with which this file is now or was at one time distributed.
> 
> This product includes software developed by agimatec GmbH.
> Copyright 2007-2010 Agimatec GmbH. All rights reserved."
> 
> Yet the jar NOTICE files do not. Would seem they should be consistent (one 
> way or the other).
> 

Just double-checked the latest trunk build and the NOTICE files are in
the jars and contain the Agimatec notice....


> --kevan 

Reply via email to