Reverted and added exclude. Thanks for you patience! I won't claim to understand any of this, but I'm glad we found an easy solution and managed to deflect and long drawn out discussion ;-)
EdB On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > Sorry, I agree it is very confusing. IMO, there are two choices based on > the repo before you made changes: > > 1) just add the two OFL.txt files to the RAT excludes. > 2) copy the entirety of the two OFL.txt files including the copyrights > into LICENSE and don’t touch NOTICE. > > My understanding is that we’re not supposed to edit a third-party license, > which is effectively what you did by splitting the OFL.txt file into two > pieces. NOTICE doesn’t have to contain the copyright for every > third-party copyright, only when the third-party license itself requires > attribution but doesn’t have a place for that attribution in the template > for the third-party license. There is no one rule for every third-party > license. > > I would prefer #1 because having two copies of OFL.txt with different > copyrights at the top makes LICENSE look like it has duplication and the > how-to recommends pointers. And yes, I will make the changes if you want > me to. > > Sorry and thanks, > -Alex > > On 11/19/14, 12:49 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > > >And: why does this have to be so difficult? Between the NOTICE and the > >LICENSE it is very clear who own the copyright to - and which license > >applies to - the fonts. What more can one want, or why would you do less, > >given that the fonts are open source? > > > >EdB > > > > > > > >On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> > wrote: > > > >> Nope. You lost me completely. Shall I revert and leave it to the > >>experts? > >> Or can you tell me what to change, without explaining why, please? > >> > >> EdB > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 11/19/14, 11:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > >>> > >>> >I followed some of the other 'external' licenses, which have a copy of > >>> the > >>> >license in LICENSE (with a sentence explaining to what it applies) and > >>> the > >>> >original copy right claims of the authors in NOTICE (with a mention of > >>> the > >>> >applicable license). I have just committed my changes, feel free to > >>> review > >>> >those. > >>> > >>> I did look. My understanding of the rules is that some licenses tell > >>>the > >>> author to add their copyright to the license text, and in those cases, > >>>I > >>> think we’re not supposed to modify the license text to separate out the > >>> copyrights into the NOTICE file. Instead, just use a pointer in > >>>LICENSE > >>> (i.e., tell folks where to find the third-party license file) which is > >>>how > >>> I’d told the FlatSpark folks to do it, or copy the whole third-party > >>> license with the copyrights into LICENSE which is sort of what > >>>happened in > >>> Squiggly. > >>> > >>> It is the Apache policy that has us move copyrights for donated code to > >>> NOTICE. > >>> > >>> And in the case where the license requires attribution but no > >>>attribution > >>> is in the LICENSE like the CameronMusic sound, we mentioned the > >>>creator in > >>> the NOTICE. > >>> > >>> -Alex > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ix Multimedia Software > >> > >> Jan Luykenstraat 27 > >> 3521 VB Utrecht > >> > >> T. 06-51952295 > >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >Ix Multimedia Software > > > >Jan Luykenstraat 27 > >3521 VB Utrecht > > > >T. 06-51952295 > >I. www.ixsoftware.nl > > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
