On 8/3/15, 1:59 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >As the GCL (incorrectly) doesn’t have a NOTICE file there’s no need to >add it to NOTICE [1] and as it Apache licensed there no need to add it to >LICENSE [1]. It is always hard to know what the “right” thing to do is, but note that in [3], sebb recommends listing non-ASF AL2.0 dependencies in LICENSE. > >However probably best in this case is to assume it had a generic NOTICE >and just add something like this: >"This software contains code from the Google Closure Library, copyright >Google XXXX” > >My reasoning is that all of the bundled code, while Apache licensed, is >not copyright the ASF and nor was it developed at Apache and it would be >a bit cheeky to imply (by omission) that it was. Sadly the documentation >at the licensing how to is a little unclear on how to add non ASF Apache >licensed software, particularly when they are missing a NOTICE file. Well, that is reasonable reasoning, however, our last advice on this topic is here at [4] which would imply no change to NOTICE. -Alex > >Current versions of LICENSE/ NOTICE are probably not a release blockers, >as having a little much info is more a documentation issue than an >licensing error. Although it is best to try and keep NOTICE contents to a >minimum. > >Are any of the GCL MIT/BSD licensed bits included / bundled? Is so they >will need need to be mentioned in LICENSE [2] > >Thanks, >Justin > >1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep >2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps [3] http://s.apache.org/qDa [4] http://s.apache.org/vP7
