On 14/12/2007, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 14/12/2007, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > > On Dec 14, 2007 6:35 AM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Seems like a bad idea to me, but I might not be understanding it > > > > correctly. > > > > > > > > 1) Does this mean the LICENSE and NOTICE file are not sitting in svn > > > > next to the source? > > > > > > Yes it does mean that - the LICENSE file comes from an apache jar and > > > the notice files gets generated from bits in the pom (organization, > > > inception year and dependencies's poms). > > > > > I think the N&L files should be in SVN as mentioned by Hen. > > The strategy should probably be discussed on the legal-discuss list. > > > > > 2) Does this mean each component is sharing a NOTICE file? > > > > > > No see above. > > > > > > Also - more discussion on this here: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSSITE-21 > > > > I'm not sure this works right for NOTICE files. > > > > For example, commons-logging might include some code written by a third > > party but licensed under an APL2.0-compatible license (including BSD, etc). > > In that case AIUI we remove copyright and license information from the > > files [1], and put it into NOTICE instead. This keeps the code uncluttered, > > while putting the contributor info for the project ancestry into one > > easy-to-find place (NOTICE.txt). > > Likewise for 3rd party jars, the license needs to be added to the NOTICE file. > [If there are a few of these, one can use separate LICENSE files and > refer to them from the NOTICE file] >
That's not quite correct - the attributions need to be in the NOTICE file. Licenses must either be bundled into a single LICENSE file, or the LICENSE file must contain pointers to the 3rd party licenses: See last paragraph of: http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new "Otherwise ... or at least put a pointer ..." > > So it is not just a matter of taking the organisation property from the > > pom; a single mvn module can have multiple entries in its NOTICE file. > > > > Getting the LICENSE file from a central point is ok, as we can never > > "borrow" code as described above unless we are legally allowed to > > redistribute under the APL2, so only the APL2 is ever needed as a LICENSE. > > > > I agree with Hen - it should be in SVN, unless legal say otherwise. > > > [1] not sure if this requires the agreement of the copyright owner or not. > > > > Regards, > > > > Simon > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
