Steve Lawrence updated DAFFODIL-1906:
Fix Version/s: (was: 2.2.0)
> Updates to LICENSE/NOTICE files
> Key: DAFFODIL-1906
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1906
> Project: Daffodil
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Infrastructure
> Reporter: Steve Lawrence
> Assignee: Steve Lawrence
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 2.1.0
> The following updates should be made to the LICENSE/NOTICE files:
> # In the source LICENSE file, for all bundled dependencies we should be more
> explicit about exactly which files/directories are under a non-Apache
> license. For example saying "we bundle sources from Passera" is not enough.
> Instead, we should list out the directory paths to the passera
> files/directories. Also, be more explicit about the license. For example:
> (then the license text).
> # Rename the LICENSE/NOTICE in daffodil-cli something different to clarify
> that they are not the license for that directory, but are for the binary
> releases. Something like "LICENSE-bin" would be acceptable.
> # In the NOTICE, we should list the original authors of all source
> transferred to ASF (i.e. NCSA, Tresys, and IBM).
> # Determine if we can split partially licensed files. For example, in
> daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/, we have
> multiple files that were originally created by IBM (transferred to ASF via an
> SGA), but which include DFDL snippets taken from the Open Grid Forum DFDL
> Spec, which is under a non-Apache license. If possible and if without too
> much messiness, we should move the snippets out to separate files so that
> there are no files that are half-Apache/half OGF licensed.
> # Revert the LICENSE and NOTICE changes in PR-43
> ([https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/pull/43)] so that the NOTICE
> file does not contain information about BSD and other licenses (i.e. the
> copyright information should be moved back to the LICENSE file)
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA