> On Dec 7, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Dan Debrunner <d...@debrunners.com> wrote: > ... > binary-release/NOTICE has lists of files for various ext folders, but the > list of jars in some cases (connectors/iotp, connectors/kafka, at least) is a > sub-set of the jars that end up in (for example): > > build/distributions/java8/connectors/kafka/ext > > Should the NOTICE file include all jars?
Good question. (Not sure if the “policy” is that this should be discussed on the [DISCUSS] thread but since it’s been posted here…) It’s not as simple as “if there’s an entry in LICENSE, there should be a corresponding info in NOTICE”. Are there specific case where you believe there should be a corresponding NOTICE… and why? While permissively licensed products (MIT, BSD,EPL,EDL) require inclusion of license information, “Under normal circumstances, there is no need to modify NOTICE” [1] and [2]. In most cases these products don’t have notice-like content to include. For AL-2.0 licensed dependencies see [3]. Reviewing the files in licenses/binary-license again I see there are some cases where we’ve included a “standard” NOTICE file (one lacking any additional attributions) for some AL-2.0 licensed dependencies. Justin, should these AL-2.0 “standard” NOTICES be included? As for some AL-2.0 licensed dependencies where we haven’t included a NOTICE, at least in some (all?) cases the dependency simply lacks a NOTICE or notice-like file. Though perhaps we’ve omitted some “standard” NOTICE content by mistake. Perhaps Justin could speak more authoritatively to this. [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps <http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps> [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice <http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice> [3] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep <http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep> — Dale
