Done. Fixed the copyright and Apache License, Version 2.0 text. D.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> > >
