Thanks for the clarification, Jukka. I have an additional question concerning one set of files: PhoneGapLib/classes/Notification.* These files have a copyright notice but no license. Since the author did sign the Apache/MIT license that Nitobi tracked, I think I can add the Apache/MIT license used for other PhoneGap sources to the header of this file since that use was approved by the author (based on #2 at [1]). But, I am also thinking that if we get approval from the author we can use the Apache standard header and just keep his copyright?
This hurts my brain! thanks, -becky [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Becky Gibson <gibson.be...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I had a few questions about the NOTICE file. The doc indicates that I > should > > include any removed copyrights from files that are now checked in with > the > > Apache notice. > > Note that the suggestion of removing such extra copyrights falls under > the "Code Developed at the ASF" section [1]. This includes code > contributed with a software grant, which covers most of the code > developed by the PhoneGap project but not third party files that > PhoneGap included from external sources. > > The following "Third-Party Works" section [2] describes how to handle > such files. Basically the license headers of such files should not be > modified. Additionally the relevant license terms from such license > headers should be included in the top-level LICENSE file [3], and any > required notices (that are pretty rare) [4] need to be placed in the > NOTICE file. > > > Here is a example of what I put into NOTICE for one of the files that > did not > > have the "standard", previous license blurb. > > [...] > > Basically, I took the existing header/license from the Notification.* > files and > > put it into the NOTICE file. Is this correct? > > It's OK to include the notes in the NOTICE file but IIRC not > necessary. I'd rather *not* include them in the NOTICE file as doing > so puts extra burden to downstream users (see section 4 of ALv2 [5]). > Instead it's good to copy the relevant licenses entirely (including > the copyright attributions) to the LICENSE file. > > > I have a bit more concerns with Reachability.* as they have long Apple > copyrights > > Those license headers should also go to LICENSE. However, it would be > best first to run the license through the Apache legal team as > described in [6]. I don't recall this license being reviewed for > compatibility with the Apache license [7]. > > > And for JSON/JSONKit.* I just replaced the existing license since it was > already > > the Apache text and did not make an entry in the NOTICE file: > > Here too it would be better to leave the original header intact and > mention the JSONKit component in the LICENSE file. > > I hope this and the pointers below help. Please ask for more details > or background where needed. > > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers > [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party > [3] > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses > [4] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices > [5] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 > [6] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#asking-questions > [7] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting >
