On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 06:21:03PM -0400, Michael McCandless wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Wouldn't be NOTICE.txt the right place for this? >> >> I think NOTICE.txt/LICENSE.txt is in order to reference the license of >> 3rd party sources when they are incorporated? > > How is this material coming in to Apache? Is it being "submitted directly to > the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent", in which case the following > applies? > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
My opinion is that this one applies. > I had thought that was the case, but if not, then this applies instead and I > believe usage is more constrained... > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party And not this one. > ... though I'm not clear about exactly what the constraints are because the > license is ASL2. If it were another license, then usage would definitely be > more constrained. > > Regardless, NOTICE.txt isn't the place for a link advertising a book. > > http://markmail.org/message/cxwtnuys65c7hs2y (Roy Fielding) > > Hey, I'm all for people having opinions on development and credits and > documentation. NOTICE and LICENSE are none of those. They are not open to > anyone's opinions other than the copyright owners that require such > notices, > and they must not be added where they are not required. Each additional > notice > places a burden on the ASF and all downstream redistributors. > > ... > > If you put stuff in NOTICE that is not legally required to be there, I will > remove it as an officer of the ASF. Right this is my impression to. Assuming I can somehow negotiate this b/w Apache and Mannning.... the current plan is description of this change, link to book's URL, goes in CHANGES.txt, and then any legalese is added to NOTICE/LICENSE. >> LIA2's source code is already ASL2, though it is "Copyright Manning" so >> probably we will need to also put an entry in NOTICE.txt/LICENSE.txt. > > It would be nice if that were not the case, because of the burden on > downstream. Why don't IBM, Lucid, Twitter, and so on insist on having their > copyrights put into NOTICE.txt? Managing credit on a collective project like > this is really hard. IMO, to be fairest to everyone it's best to avoid the > issue altogether whenever possible. I completely agree! I'll see if Manning is amenable. > Again, this in no way diminishes the value of Manning's potential contribution > or our gratitude for it. I just hope Manning understands why accommodating > their request perhaps isn't as easy as it might have seemed from the outside. Understood -- I'm trying to explain why these issues are important to Apache, but, the book publishing world is like a whole new universe compared to the Apache universe!! Of course, Manning (and other publishes) bridge these two universes.... Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
