On 25.01.2015 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> 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
Better. :)
The name of the ALv2 in NOTICE is still not correct.
The copyright year at the top of NOTICE is wrong:
* There was no Ignite release in 2014, so there can't be a copyright
notice for that year. The copyright notice applies to releases, not
to the contents of the repository. Even if the repository is public,
it's contents have not been "released" by the ASF.
* It's more correct to use just the year of the latest release;
previous source releases will contain older versions of NOTICE, so
the year will always be correct for whichever release you're looking
at. The copyright notice should read:
"Copyright 2015 The Apache Software Foundation"
assuming, of course, that you'll make a release this year ... :)
-- Brane
> 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
>>
