On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:

> It's a basic "legal" question... maybe I'm blind, but couldn't find a
> definitive answer, so I'm a worried to act without the blessing of
> others.
> We got some binaries in the source code, which were created at the
> FreeMarker project, and technically can't have a source code:
>   src/main/misc/overloadedNumberRules/prices.ods
>   src/manual/en_US/docgen-originals/figures/overview.odg
>   src/manual/en_US/docgen-originals/figures/model2sketch_with_alpha.png
>   src/manual/en_US/docgen-originals/figures/tree_with_alpha.png
>   src/manual/en_US/favicon.png
>   src/manual/en_US/figures/model2sketch.png
>   src/manual/en_US/figures/overview.png
>   src/manual/en_US/figures/tree.png
>   src/manual/en_US/logo.png
>   src/manual/zh_CN/favicon.png
>   src/manual/zh_CN/figures/model2sketch.png
>   src/manual/zh_CN/figures/overview.png
>   src/manual/zh_CN/figures/tree.png
>   src/manual/zh_CN/logo.png
> Because they are binaries, they have no copyright header, which, at
> least in some heads (on the Incubator list back then), leads to
> uncertainty regarding their origin and license. I would think that if
> I say nothing, then it's implied that the LICENSE at the root applies.
> But, to make that explicit, currently we have a footnote in the LICENSE:
> https://github.com/apache/freemarker/blob/2405e61bde8a2d8f74f7ba598b4e1b
> 8ed1e244c1/LICENSE
> I have looked at some TLP-s back then, and saw that they state nothing
> about the images (that they have produced, hopefully). So that must be
> acceptable. Not sure why OpenOffice files would be different then.
> Anyway, I really would like to get rid of any "footnotes" from LICENSE
> (or NOTICE). Can I?

I am fine either way: the text in LICENSE makes the origin and license of
these files explicit; without it, considering it is a small set of trivial
artifacts, I agree that the implicit natural assumption would be that they
are delivered with the same license.


Reply via email to