Thanks Henry for your comments. I do in general agree that slim notice files are nicer, but I am thoroughly confused what counts are which distribution (src, bin, is maven src or bin, where do re-bundlers find the notices to include, etc) and the Apache guide did not make it clearer for me.
If you think that we can start with the fat notice file (being safe) and "thin it out" later (once we figured the right way out), it would be a great way to go, in my opinion. It would help us to not loose to much time on that issue and get the first version released. Any objections? On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote: > The NOTICE and LICENSE is kind of tricky hence the guide is created > but I always feel it created more confusion that clarification. > > Like Stephen said, Spark and Cassandra seemed to be in the safe side > meaning jut dump all possible NOTICE from each packaged dependencies > to be safe. > So, for now we could just keep existing fat NOTICE file for first > release candidate and see if we got any comments from other people in > the Incubator PMCs. > > - Henry > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > wrote: > > The reason why I kicked of the whole discussion is the following sentence > > in the guide Henry posted [1]: > > "LICENSE and NOTICE must always be tailored to the content of the > specific > > distribution they reside within. Dependencies which are not included in > the > > distribution MUST NOT be added to LICENSE and NOTICE. As far as LICENSE > and > > NOTICE are concerned, *only bundled bits matter."* > > > > The top level LICENSE / NOTICE files end up only in the source release, > > which does not contain the source/binary of the dependencies (only > > references to them, in the pom files). > > Either I've oversight something or Spark and Cassandra have wrong NOTICE > > files in their source releases. > > I could not find a similar discussion on the legal list here: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/. But maybe > > thats the right place to ask that question. > > > > [1]: > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundled-vs-non-bundled > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Okay, this seems to be tricky, and different projects do it in different > >> ways. > >> > >> Some projects seem to do it the way I prepared it (Spark or Cassandra) . > >> See the root level files > >> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE > >> or https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/trunk/NOTICE.txt > >> > >> Which way is correct? > >> > >> Having a fat NOTICE file may be ugly, but it would put us on the safe > side, > >> no? > >> > >> Robert suggested to have two LICENSE and NOTICE files, one at the source > >> root, one for the binary distribution. If we go that way, then anyone > that > >> adds Flink as a Maven dependency (which bundles the bits) needs to > figure > >> out that the relevant NOTICE file is only available in the binary > >> distribution - that the source NOTICE file is not listing all required > >> entries. Would that really be correct? > >> >
