On 11/19/14, 12:23 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >>dActually, I looked and it is in LICENSE. Did we need this section in >> NOTICE at all? > >I believe so for the attribution. [1] says NOTICE may need to change. [2] >states that: >"Many of these licenses have specific attribution terms that need to be >adhered to, for example CC-A, often by adding them to the NOTICE file."
I wish there was a clear cut example of what kinds of things CC licenses might have that need to go in NOTICE. But to me, the relevant part of [1] is: "For any other type of CC-SA licensed work, please contact the Legal PMC." And from [3]: "Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally required." > >I don't think I managed to find any other info on what to do with CC-A >licenses. So not having it NOTICE is most likely a licensing error, but >having in the NOTICE file is most likely correct and at worse extra info >could be removed if we discover clearer legal information at a later >point. I couldn’t find much either. Interestingly, I did see a thread on legal-discuss saying that CC-SA is not Category A, only CC-A is [4], so the only thing we have to go by is [1]. I wish I’d seen this sooner. Or did you already ask? Or how about this alternative? Since you aren’t linking to text from wikipedia and instead are copying text from wikipedia, how about we copy text from blogs.apache.org/flex? Then we can avoid this whole LICENSE/NOTICE issue completely. -Alex > >Thanks, >Justin > >1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa >2. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a [3] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html [4] http://s.apache.org/nx
