I have updated the LICENSE and NOTICE files based on the latest comments from Brane. Please take a look and let me know if additional changes are required.
LICENSE (added the MIT clause at the end) https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE.txt;h=90666d8b2f1b347e2b4942f0709dbaae6f050c01;hb=refs/heads/sprint-1 NOTICE (removed runtime dependencies) https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE.txt;h=a3c19952c116184651e2bd9ec626b7d0af463f1d;hb=refs/heads/sprint-1 D. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25.01.2015 03:19, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have added the NOTICE.txt file for Apache Ignite to sprint-1 branch > with > > a list of all dependencies we have: > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE.txt;h=dbf2072f0bb3bc447fc4d478387aabb629dca8f6;hb=refs/heads/sprint-1 > > > > Please review and provide comments. > > First of all, there is no "Apache 2.0 license". It's called the "Apache > License, Version 2.0"; it's important to use the exact name of the > license everywhere. > > > > Also, I have a couple of questions: > > > > 1. Should we include optional runtime dependencies, or only source code > > dependencies? > > No. The NOTICE file must describe the source release, nothing more and > nothing less. In other words, if a dependency is not included in the > source bundle, it should not be mentioned in NOTICE. Also note that > whatever is mentioned in NOTICE should, in general, also have a section > in LICENSE, although it's neither necessary nor desired to have several > copies of whole license texts there. > > See the following two files for an example of how this is done: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/NOTICE?view=markup > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/LICENSE?view=markup > > The correct place to mention (mandatory or optional, source or binary) > dependencies that are not part of the source package is in a README > file, or other documentation about installing Ignite. > > > 2. If should should include optional runtime dependencies, is it OK to > have > > a runtime dependency on LGPL libraries? > > It's perfectly OK to have optional dependencies on code that's licensed > under GPL or LGPL. The code that uses those libraries can be part of the > regular source distribution, and even of convenience binary packages, as > long as those binaries can still be used without such dependencies. > > For example, Subversion up to 1.7 had an optional dependency on Neon, > which is an HTTP client library distributed under GPL. We had a script > that would download the recommended version of Neon, and our makefiles > could build that and enable HTTP protocol support. But we didn't mention > it in NOTICE or LICENSE, and Subversion could be built without Neon. > > -- Brane >
