Hi Eric, On Aug 17, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:00 +0100, sebb wrote:Given whats being said in the "Thrift release legal issues" thread i think it should be ok to have the 3rd party licenses separate,I disagree. It must be possible to find all the LICENSE files startingat the initial LICENSE file. At the very least, the initial LICENSE file should have pointers to the other license files.the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd party codeincluded in the propose release.When preparing for the 0.3.0[0] release I spent a great deal of time trying to get all of this right.
And I understand that it's frustrating fetching rocks.
I looked at list threads for bothsuccessful and failed podling release votes, I looked at what top- level projects were doing, and I read through what documentation I could find.This wasn't as helpful as I'd have liked because the documents are non-normative and the application is inconsistent, (and occasionally contradictory). So I did the best I could.The conclusion I came to with respect to NOTICE.txt was that it existed for purposes of attribution, and was specifically in response to section4(d) of the Apache License. As a result, the NOTICE.txt in the (approved )0.3.0 artifacts and the proposed 0.4.0, contains twoattribution statements, one for the Apache licensed Groovy, and one for"software developed by The Apache Software Foundation" which should cover everything else that is Apache licensed.
If you ship ANTLR with your release, you must include that fact in the NOTICE file, otherwise you're violating the terms of the ANTLR license.
The conclusion I came to for LICENSE.txt was that it was for including the full license text applicable to the project itself.
No, it's all of the licenses for all the code you're shipping.
Both of the above conclusions seemed consistent with at least some successful podling releases, and with some ASF top-level projects, and (to the best of my knowledge), all of the license requirements for our third-party dependencies are being met. However, I'd be happy to go back and correct any shortcomings and re-roll the artifacts if that will get us the votes we need to make a release. I just wish things were more consistent and that the process required a little less groping around in the dark.
Well, the license stuff is the trickiest part of rolling a release. Craig
[0] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg21853.html -- Eric Evans [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
